Skip to content

Conversation

saethlin
Copy link
Member

@saethlin saethlin commented May 11, 2024

I'm not sure if these count as false positives, because well, starting a comment with // incremental was probably a valid compiletest directive.

But anyway, these tests directives became clearly goofy and now with the better syntax we can straighten things out.

r? jieyouxu

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 11, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would just re-wrap those comments to suppress the tidy errors. r=me unless you want a review specifically from @jieyouxu.

@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the ui-test-false-positives branch from 333c1bc to f11bd7e Compare May 11, 2024 23:58
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

Hunh. Odd that check runs so late if it's just from tidy.

I'll send it if CI passes, thanks!

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 12, 2024

📌 Commit f11bd7e has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 12, 2024
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request May 12, 2024
…r=compiler-errors

Fix some minor issues from the ui-test auto-porting

I'm not sure if these count as false positives, because well, starting a comment with `// incremental` was probably a valid compiletest directive.

But anyway, these tests directives became clearly goofy and now with the better syntax we can straighten things out.

r? jieyouxu
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 12, 2024
…llaumeGomez

Rollup of 4 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#124807 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-io-error` to `rmake.rs`)
 - rust-lang#125021 (Update reference safety requirements)
 - rust-lang#125030 (Fix some minor issues from the ui-test auto-porting)
 - rust-lang#125036 (solve: all "non-structural" logging to trace)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 12, 2024
…llaumeGomez

Rollup of 4 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#125021 (Update reference safety requirements)
 - rust-lang#125022 (Migrate rustdoc scrape examples ordering)
 - rust-lang#125030 (Fix some minor issues from the ui-test auto-porting)
 - rust-lang#125036 (solve: all "non-structural" logging to trace)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 14271c2 into rust-lang:master May 12, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 12, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 12, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#125030 - saethlin:ui-test-false-positives, r=compiler-errors

Fix some minor issues from the ui-test auto-porting

I'm not sure if these count as false positives, because well, starting a comment with `// incremental` was probably a valid compiletest directive.

But anyway, these tests directives became clearly goofy and now with the better syntax we can straighten things out.

r? jieyouxu
@saethlin saethlin deleted the ui-test-false-positives branch May 12, 2024 16:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants