Skip to content

Weaken assertion in validate #3

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 2, 2024
Merged

Conversation

carljm
Copy link
Collaborator

@carljm carljm commented Aug 2, 2024

Backport the last fix commit from salsa-rs#550

It's now possible for mark_validated_output to be called on a struct that we already validated via maybe_changed_after on one of its fields, so validate can no longer assert that the struct is out of date.

This time I actually checked incremental run on tomllib locally with this change to ensure it works.

It's now possible for `mark_validated_output` to be called on a struct
that we already validated via `maybe_changed_after` on one of its
fields, so `validate` can no longer assert that the struct is out of
date.
@carljm carljm requested a review from MichaReiser August 2, 2024 17:18
@carljm
Copy link
Collaborator Author

carljm commented Aug 2, 2024

Going to go ahead and merge this to unblock getting red-knot fixed on real code; review comments should probably go to the Salsa PR anyway.

@carljm carljm merged commit 635e239 into MichaReiser:master Aug 2, 2024
@carljm carljm deleted the backport-more branch August 2, 2024 17:21
MichaReiser pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
It's now possible for `mark_validated_output` to be called on a struct
that we already validated via `maybe_changed_after` on one of its
fields, so `validate` can no longer assert that the struct is out of
date.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant