fix: improve message for inactive weak optional feature with edition2024 #14019
Conversation
|
r? @weihanglo rustbot has assigned @weihanglo. Use |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
| @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ Caused by: | |||
| error: failed to parse manifest at `[ROOT]/foo/Cargo.toml` | |||
|
|
|||
| Caused by: | |||
| feature `feat` includes `dep?/feat`, but `dep` is not a dependency | |||
| feature `feat` includes `dep?/feat`, activate it in a feature with `dep:dep` if `dep` is an enabled dependency | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if
depis an enabled dependency
I feel the wording could be improved here. To help in coming up with ideas, could you expand on what you are trying to convey
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, the messge need to include the cases that dependency inactive and dependency missing, if dep is an enabled dependency means the former.
#14026 is another PR to distinguish these. And this PR may require more detailed wording to address both cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest keep this PR to polish the message unless #14026 is merged
| Caused by: | ||
| feature `feat` includes `dep?/feat`, but `dep` is not a dependency | ||
| feature `feat` includes `dep?/feat`, activate it in a feature with `dep:dep` if `dep` is an enabled dependency |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels like a regression for us to be telling people to add dep:dep when they also need to add the dependency itself.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #14028) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Close this in favor of #14026 |
What does this PR try to resolve?
This will improve the message for inactive weak optional feature with edition2024.
This doesn't distinguish whether the dependency had set, which needs to get the dependency from origin that will make more complex.
Fixes #14015
How should we test and review this PR?
one commit add the test, one commit fix and update the test
Additional information