When a trait is not implemented for a type, but there *is* an `impl`
for another type or different trait params, we format the output to
use highlighting in the same way that E0308 does for types.
The logic accounts for 3 cases:
- When both the type and trait in the expected predicate and the candidate are different
- When only the types are different
- When only the trait generic params are different
For each case, we use slightly different formatting and wording.
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
When a method chain ending in `?` causes an E0277 because the
expression's `Result::Err` variant doesn't have a type that can be
converted to the `Result<_, E>` type parameter in the return type,
provide additional context of which parts of the chain can and can't
support the `?` operator.
```
error[E0277]: `?` couldn't convert the error to `String`
--> $DIR/question-mark-result-err-mismatch.rs:28:25
|
LL | fn bar() -> Result<(), String> {
| ------------------ expected `String` because of this
LL | let x = foo();
| ----- this can be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<String, String>`
LL | let one = x
LL | .map(|s| ())
| ----------- this can be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<(), String>`
LL | .map_err(|_| ())?;
| ---------------^ the trait `From<()>` is not implemented for `String`
| |
| this can't be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<(), ()>`
|
= note: the question mark operation (`?`) implicitly performs a conversion on the error value using the `From` trait
= help: the following other types implement trait `From<T>`:
<String as From<char>>
<String as From<Box<str>>>
<String as From<Cow<'a, str>>>
<String as From<&str>>
<String as From<&mut str>>
<String as From<&String>>
= note: required for `Result<(), String>` to implement `FromResidual<Result<Infallible, ()>>`
```
Fix#72124.
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
