fix(future): Report all content as a single Report #15943
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
A-future-incompat
|
We may want to wait until rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs#310 |
This was referenced Sep 10, 2025
epage
force-pushed
the
annotate-future
branch
from
3191b82 to
b190379
Compare
Parallel isn't part of this test and it makes snapshot updating annoying.
This will make it easier later to put each in their own message/title in annotate snippets. The hack will be removed later in this series.
This better matches other sub-lists
Per rustc dev guide
epage
force-pushed
the
annotate-future
branch
from
b190379 to
77d00f6
Compare
That is merged and this PR is updated. This should be good to go forward |
epage
force-pushed
the
annotate-future
branch
from
77d00f6 to
2c5b4df
Compare
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2025
Update cargo submodule 19 commits in 24bb93c388fb8c211a37986539f24a819dc669d3..966f94733bbc94ca51ff9f1e4c49ad250ebbdc50 2025-09-10 23:16:07 +0000 to 2025-09-16 17:24:45 +0000 - fix(frontmatter): Improve error quality (rust-lang/cargo#15972) - fix: wrong variable name in documentation (rust-lang/cargo#15968) - Add "Optimizing Build Performance" section to the Cargo book (rust-lang/cargo#15924) - Remove extra apostrophe in environment-variables.md (rust-lang/cargo#15963) - Clarify warning for using `features` or `default-features` in `patch` (rust-lang/cargo#15953) - fix(frontmatter): Try alternative len code fences (rust-lang/cargo#15952) - feat(cli): Allow completions for third-party subcommand names (rust-lang/cargo#15961) - docs(index): Clarify what we mean by omitting features (rust-lang/cargo#15957) - fix(future): Report all content as a single Report (rust-lang/cargo#15943) - fix(complete): Show local crates/features over other members (rust-lang/cargo#15956) - docs(resolver): Describe the role of the lockfile (rust-lang/cargo#15958) - chore: Skip check-version-bump ci job in forks (rust-lang/cargo#15959) - Eliminate the last three "did you mean" warning phrasings (rust-lang/cargo#15356) - fix(info): Suggest a more universal `cargo tree` command (rust-lang/cargo#15954) - feat(cli): Use ellipses when truncating progress (rust-lang/cargo#15955) - feat(completer): Added completion for `--features` flag (rust-lang/cargo#15309) - fix(publish): Switch the 'ctrl-c on wait' line to a help message (rust-lang/cargo#15942) - docs: move docs building process to contributor guide (rust-lang/cargo#15854) - fix(manifest): Show error source to users (rust-lang/cargo#15939) r? ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
This changes the future-incompat message to be reported in a single
Report. The primary motivation is to cleanup the output compared to taking the existing note's and aligning all content with the first line which is what would happen otherwise in #15917.In preparation for this, the message was cleaned up and made more like what a rustc message might look like.
How to test and review this PR?