parent
e6de7e3ac2
commit
a600635fad
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue