-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Adjust error on bad enum #23080
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Adjust error on bad enum #23080
Conversation
6394792 to
9b3d4a1
Compare
|
Not a cycle but maybe opaque means abstract. Anyway it should only check abstract term. The other caution is that it's easier to let refchecks do the work. What enum syntax is legal? Every tweak to the test is an indentation problem. So it's easier to have confidence in the refcheck in the first commit, because the |
| s"""| | ||
| |No errors expected/defined in $testSource -- use // error or // nopos-error" | ||
| |$showErrors | ||
| |""".stripMargin.trim.linesIterator.mkString("\n", "\n", "") |
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 is the most important part of this PR.
9b3d4a1 to
3784d34
Compare
|
Rebased. |
3784d34 to
cf448f7
Compare
|
Passes locally. |
Fixes #22734
First cut is in refchecks, second cut is in checking.
Not sure if checking will induce cycles.
I have an old branch to improve "missing members" in refchecks, but too much work to leverage here.
This message may make more sense in checking, where it is enum-specific. The user must fix the enum and not the case (perhaps).