test(chore): audit //@ run-pass in ui tests

[Embers-of-the-Fire]

View all comments

Part of work for #154158.

[rustbot]

r? @JonathanBrouwer

rustbot has assigned @JonathanBrouwer.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 69 candidates
• Random selection from 14 candidates

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rustbot reroll
I'm very busy in my personal life this week and probably the next one as well so will leave review duty for a bit (just changed my triagebot config)

[TaKO8Ki]

Thank you. Could you let me know when you're ready with @rustbot review and rebase all commits into a single commit at the end? @Embers-of-the-Fire

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[Embers-of-the-Fire]

@rustbot review

[TaKO8Ki]

@Embers-of-the-Fire Could you fix CI failures?

[JonathanBrouwer]

💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup
@bors r-

After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving.

Link to failure: #157525 (comment)

Running a try job since I'm confused about what's causing this
@bors try jobs=test-various

[rust-bors]

This pull request was unapproved.

This PR was contained in a rollup (#157525), which was unapproved.

View changes since this unapproval

[TaKO8Ki]

@Embers-of-the-Fire As this comment says, please use @bors r=TaKO8Ki #154254 (comment)

I will approve instead.

[TaKO8Ki]

@bors delegate-

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for 8b45fe5 failed: CI. Failed job:

• try - test-various (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/cargo

cc @ehuss

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[Embers-of-the-Fire]

@bors try jobs=test-various

[rust-bors]

@Embers-of-the-Fire: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try jobs=test-various

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 2515828 (2515828e1c3682318194a99a8f11558fc130a673, parent: 43a4909ee98ed4d006d9d773f5d94dc58e34f846)

[TaKO8Ki]

It seems that this needs to remain as run-pass.

test_7::check uses assert_eq!.

rust/tests/ui/delegation/generics/mapping/free-to-free-pass.rs

Lines 137 to 145 in 1005fa3

	test_1::check();
	test_2::check::<i32, String>();
	test_3::check::<i32, String>();
	test_4::check::<i32, String>();
	test_5::check::<i32, String>();
	test_6::check::<i32, String>();
	test_7::check();
	test_8::check::<i32, String>();
	test_9::check::<String, i32>();

rust/tests/ui/delegation/generics/mapping/free-to-free-pass.rs

Lines 91 to 94 in 1005fa3

	pub fn check<T: Clone, U: Clone>() {
	reuse foo::<String, 1, String> as bar;
	bar(&"".to_string(), &"".to_string());
	}

View changes since the review

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #158189) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.