Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f… - #73672
Merged
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Jun 23, 2020
Contributor
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @kennytm (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
nellshamrell
marked this pull request as ready for review
June 23, 2020 23:38
rust-highfive
commented
Jun 24, 2020
Contributor
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
nikomatsakis
commented
Jun 24, 2020
Contributor
r? @estebank |
estebank
commented
Jun 25, 2020
Contributor
@nellshamrell Can you run |
rust-highfive
commented
Jun 25, 2020
Contributor
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
estebank
commented
Jun 25, 2020
Contributor
It seems like you need to call |
rust-highfive
commented
Jun 25, 2020
Contributor
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
…unction Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
nellshamrell
commented
Jun 26, 2020
ContributorAuthor
@estebank I think this is good to go now! |
estebank
commented
Jun 26, 2020
Contributor
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Jun 26, 2020
Collaborator
📌 Commit 5e28eb5 has been approved by |
Manishearth added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 27, 2020
Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f… …unction This is a somewhat simple fix for rust-lang#66731. Under the current version of Rust, if a user has a rust file that looks like this: ```rust fn boo (){} async fn foo() { boo().await; } fn main() { } ``` And they attempt to run it, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error: incorrect use of `await` --> test.rs:4:14 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^ help: `await` is not a method call, remove the parentheses error[E0277]: the trait bound `fn() {boo}: std::future::Future` is not satisfied --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `fn() {boo}` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. ``` This is not very clear. With the changes made in this PR, when a user compiles and runs that same rust code, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error[E0277]: `()` is not a future. --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo().await; | ^^^^^^^^^^^ `()` is not a future | = help: the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `()` = note: required by `std::future::Future::poll` ``` In the future, I think we should make this error message even clearer, perhaps through a solution like the one described in [this comment](rust-lang#66731 (comment)). However, as that potentially involves a major change proposal, I would rather get this change in now and make the error message a little clearer while an MCP is drafted and discussed. Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2020
Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f… …unction This is a somewhat simple fix for rust-lang#66731. Under the current version of Rust, if a user has a rust file that looks like this: ```rust fn boo (){} async fn foo() { boo().await; } fn main() { } ``` And they attempt to run it, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error: incorrect use of `await` --> test.rs:4:14 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^ help: `await` is not a method call, remove the parentheses error[E0277]: the trait bound `fn() {boo}: std::future::Future` is not satisfied --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `fn() {boo}` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. ``` This is not very clear. With the changes made in this PR, when a user compiles and runs that same rust code, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error[E0277]: `()` is not a future. --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo().await; | ^^^^^^^^^^^ `()` is not a future | = help: the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `()` = note: required by `std::future::Future::poll` ``` In the future, I think we should make this error message even clearer, perhaps through a solution like the one described in [this comment](rust-lang#66731 (comment)). However, as that potentially involves a major change proposal, I would rather get this change in now and make the error message a little clearer while an MCP is drafted and discussed. Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
Manishearth added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2020
Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f… …unction This is a somewhat simple fix for rust-lang#66731. Under the current version of Rust, if a user has a rust file that looks like this: ```rust fn boo (){} async fn foo() { boo().await; } fn main() { } ``` And they attempt to run it, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error: incorrect use of `await` --> test.rs:4:14 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^ help: `await` is not a method call, remove the parentheses error[E0277]: the trait bound `fn() {boo}: std::future::Future` is not satisfied --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `fn() {boo}` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. ``` This is not very clear. With the changes made in this PR, when a user compiles and runs that same rust code, they will receive an error message that looks like this: ```bash error[E0277]: `()` is not a future. --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo().await; | ^^^^^^^^^^^ `()` is not a future | = help: the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `()` = note: required by `std::future::Future::poll` ``` In the future, I think we should make this error message even clearer, perhaps through a solution like the one described in [this comment](rust-lang#66731 (comment)). However, as that potentially involves a major change proposal, I would rather get this change in now and make the error message a little clearer while an MCP is drafted and discussed. Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell <nellshamrell@gmail.com>
bors added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2020
…arth Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#72796 (MIR sanity check: validate types on assignment) - rust-lang#73243 (Add documentation to point to `File::open` or `OpenOptions::open` instead of `is_file` to check read/write possibility) - rust-lang#73525 (Prepare for LLVM 11) - rust-lang#73672 (Adds a clearer message for when the async keyword is missing from a f…) - rust-lang#73708 (Explain move errors that occur due to method calls involving `self` (take two)) - rust-lang#73758 (improper_ctypes: fix remaining `Reveal:All`) - rust-lang#73763 (errors: use `-Z terminal-width` in JSON emitter) - rust-lang#73796 (replace more `DefId`s with `LocalDefId`) - rust-lang#73797 (fix typo in self-profile.md) - rust-lang#73809 (Add links to fs::DirEntry::metadata) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
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.
…unction
This is a somewhat simple fix for #66731.
Under the current version of Rust, if a user has a rust file that looks like this:
And they attempt to run it, they will receive an error message that looks like this:
error: incorrect use of `await` --> test.rs:4:14 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^ help: `await` is not a method call, remove the parentheses error[E0277]: the trait bound `fn() {boo}: std::future::Future` is not satisfied --> test.rs:4:5 | 4 | boo.await(); | ^^^^^^^^^ the trait `std::future::Future` is not implemented for `fn() {boo}` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`.This is not very clear.
With the changes made in this PR, when a user compiles and runs that same rust code, they will receive an error message that looks like this:
In the future, I think we should make this error message even clearer, perhaps through a solution like the one described in this comment. However, as that potentially involves a major change proposal, I would rather get this change in now and make the error message a little clearer while an MCP is drafted and discussed.
Signed-off-by: Nell Shamrell nellshamrell@gmail.com