From 929d224b6890c98af65c364dd0fb551a431de948 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arthur Milchior Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 21:59:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Followup to #1862 First, I'm sorry, I realize a sentence was not correctly ended in #1862. Then, after re-reading UI documentation, I hope to slightly improve the documentation once again (at least, assuming that this time I totally understood how it works). --- src/incrcomp-debugging.md | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/incrcomp-debugging.md b/src/incrcomp-debugging.md index 8af06310c..7045d3fa3 100644 --- a/src/incrcomp-debugging.md +++ b/src/incrcomp-debugging.md @@ -22,8 +22,10 @@ fn bar() { foo(); } ``` This should be read as -> If this (`foo`) is changed, then this (i.e. `bar`)'s TypeckTables would need - to be changed. Also, this +> If this (`foo`) is changed, then this (i.e. `bar`)'s TypeckTables would need to be changed. + +Technically, what occurs is that the test is expected to emit the string "OK" on +stderr, associated to this line. You could also add the lines @@ -33,7 +35,8 @@ fn baz() { } ``` Whose meaning is -> If `foo` is changed, then `baz`'s TypeckTables does not need to be changed, as there is no path. +> If `foo` is changed, then `baz`'s TypeckTables does not need to be changed. +> The macro must emit an error, and the error message must contains "no path". Recall that the `//~ ERROR OK` is a comment from the point of view of the Rust code we test, but is meaningful from the point of view of the test itself.