-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
tests: Add ui/higher-ranked/trait-bounds/normalize-generic-arg.rs #126137
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This probably shouldn't be added as a test, since it's exercising behavior that we may not expect to work on the new trait solver. Type inferfence in higher-ranked associated types is kinda busted.
If you really want to add this test, then you should probably add two explicit revisions for the old and new trait solver. Grep the ui test suite for some lines to steal: //@ revisions: current next
.
Also, this test name is not really complete. It should mention something like higher-ranked. Maybe rigid-equate-projections-in-higher-ranked-fn-signature
.
238fcba
to
1293ef7
Compare
My main goal is to close #107564. Personally I'm completely fine with closing it with motivation "we don't want a test for this case". But for now I updated the test.
Done!
I thought it was sufficient that it was put in a dir called higher-ranked. But your name is much better than mine regardless. Done! |
//@[next] check-fail | ||
//@ ignore-compare-mode-next-solver (explicit revisions) | ||
|
||
/// This triggers an ICE with (and without) `--emit metadata` using the old |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(minor) either //
(preferably) or //!
. rn, this is "documenting" the trait, not the crate
@bors r+ |
@bors rollup |
This adds a regression test for an ICE "accidentally" fixed by #101947 that does not add a test for this particular case.
Closes #107564.
I have confirmed the added test code fails with
nightly-2023-01-09
(and passes withnightly-2023-01-10
and of course recentnightly
).