Skip to content

Conversation

Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor

When #114656 was written, the feature flag to replace no_coverage was originally spelled coverage, but it was eventually changed to coverage_attribute instead.

That update happened to miss this error message in removed.rs, and unfortunately I only noticed just after the original PR was approved and merged.

cc @bossmc (original author) @oli-obk (original reviewer)
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 14, 2023

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. A-code-coverage Area: Source-based code coverage (-Cinstrument-coverage) labels Sep 14, 2023
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The message for #[coverage(off)] down below was already good; the only problem was the message for #![feature(no_coverage)]).

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 14, 2023

@bors r+ rollup

whoops, good catch

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 14, 2023

📌 Commit c397ca0 has been approved by oli-obk

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 Sep 14, 2023
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2023
Fix the error message for `#![feature(no_coverage)]`

When rust-lang#114656 was written, the feature flag to replace `no_coverage` was originally spelled `coverage`, but it was eventually changed to `coverage_attribute` instead.

That update happened to miss this error message in `removed.rs`, and unfortunately I only noticed just *after* the original PR was approved and merged.

cc `@bossmc` (original author) `@oli-obk` (original reviewer)
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 4 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#115772 (Improve Span in smir)
 - rust-lang#115832 (Fix the error message for `#![feature(no_coverage)]`)
 - rust-lang#115834 (Properly consider binder vars in `HasTypeFlagsVisitor`)
 - rust-lang#115844 (Paper over an accidental regression)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bossmc
Copy link
Contributor

bossmc commented Sep 14, 2023

Thanks @Zalathar! Good spot.

@bors bors merged commit 3dbcc28 into rust-lang:master Sep 14, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.74.0 milestone Sep 14, 2023
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2023
Rollup merge of rust-lang#115832 - Zalathar:fix-no-coverage, r=oli-obk

Fix the error message for `#![feature(no_coverage)]`

When rust-lang#114656 was written, the feature flag to replace `no_coverage` was originally spelled `coverage`, but it was eventually changed to `coverage_attribute` instead.

That update happened to miss this error message in `removed.rs`, and unfortunately I only noticed just *after* the original PR was approved and merged.

cc ``@bossmc`` (original author) ``@oli-obk`` (original reviewer)
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
@Zalathar Zalathar deleted the fix-no-coverage branch September 15, 2023 01:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-code-coverage Area: Source-based code coverage (-Cinstrument-coverage) S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants