Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't depend on ? affecting type inference in weird ways #13706

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 5, 2024

Conversation

WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member

This is likely to stop working in the future versions of Rust, see rust-lang/rust#122412 (comment).

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 4, 2024

r? @epage

rustbot has assigned @epage.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 4, 2024
@epage
Copy link
Contributor

epage commented Apr 5, 2024

Merging this more as a code cleanup. For this breaking in the future, I'm assuming that is non-urgent as I'm assuming a lot needs to be worked out to uphold stability expectations before that will matter.

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 5, 2024

📌 Commit 898969e has been approved by epage

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 Apr 5, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 5, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 898969e with merge 1570666...

Copy link
Member

@weihanglo weihanglo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this block any crate run?

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 5, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: epage
Pushing 1570666 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 1570666 into rust-lang:master Apr 5, 2024
21 checks passed
@WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin deleted the don't-the-err branch April 5, 2024 01:03
@WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member Author

WaffleLapkin commented Apr 5, 2024

@epage yes, this is non urgent (although this needs to happen before the change, so that rustc's CI can pass), so I just made a PR since this is a simple change & is indeed a little cleanup.

@weihanglo this is required for the crater run on rust-lang/rust#122412, although I think I can workaround that.

@weihanglo
Copy link
Member

Thanks. I could do a cargo submodule update earlier if needed. Usually it happens on Tuesday and Friday.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2024
Update cargo

9 commits in 0637083df5bbdcc951845f0d2eff6999cdb6d30a..28e7b2bc0a812f90126be30f48a00a4ada990eaa
2024-04-02 23:55:05 +0000 to 2024-04-05 19:31:01 +0000
- refactor(toml): Decouple target discovery from Target creation (rust-lang/cargo#13701)
- Don't depend on `?` affecting type inference in weird ways (rust-lang/cargo#13706)
- test(metadata): Show behavior with TOML-specific types (rust-lang/cargo#13703)
- fix: adjust tracing verbosity in list_files_git (rust-lang/cargo#13704)
- doc: comments on `PackageRegistry` (rust-lang/cargo#13698)
- Switch to using gitoxide by default for listing files (rust-lang/cargo#13696)
- Allow precise update to prerelease. (rust-lang/cargo#13626)
- refactor(toml): Split out an explicit step to resolve `Cargo.toml` (rust-lang/cargo#13693)
- chore(deps): update rust crate base64 to 0.22.0 (rust-lang/cargo#13675)

r? ghost
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.79.0 milestone Apr 6, 2024
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.

None yet

5 participants