Re: Suggestion for new keywords in bugzilla

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 
> 
>>I actually thought that there should be two keywords for this:
> 
> 
>>missing-diagnostic (There should be a warning, but there isn't.)
>>misleading-diagnostic (There's a warning which shouldn't be there, or
>>should be replaced by a different warning.)
> 
> 
> The latter (misleading-diagnostic) can apply also to error messages. There
> are situations where error messages are totally wrong (for instance, they
> show unreadable names because they can't pretty-print correctly them, or
> they are totally unrelated to the real error), or could be improved (for
> instance, a simply "parse error", or "expected primary-expression" instead
> of something more detailed which would help the user understanding the
> problem).
> 
> But in the first place, why do you think that two keywords could be useful?
> I think the biggest difference is between diagnostic bugs which are request
> for enhancements and not strictly necessary, and diagnostic bugs which are
> really bugs (or at least, can be considered as such). And this difference is
> already taken into account by the Severity of the bug. In other words I
> suggest that your missing-diagnostic be simply a diagnostic keyword with
> Severity = enhancement, and you misleading-diagnostic be a diagnostic
> keyword with Severity != enhancement.
This isn't *exactly* what I was thinking of.  A missing diagnostic might 
be a warning which is supposed to trigger and doesn't.  A misleading 
diagnostic would be one which triggers but shouldn't.

It may be that the distinction is not valuable.  I defer to others.

> 
> Giovanni Bajo
> 
>