Skip to content

types ratchet: t27b conformance fixture postfix_optional.t27 redefines Point and Reply (Refs #7437) #7522

Closed as not planned

Description

@gHashTag

Since #7462 (92e2e44, 2026-10-07 11:32Z), specs/tri/t27b/conformance/postfix_optional.t27 defines const Point = struct { x: i32, y: i32 } and const Reply = struct { ok, note, code, at }.

  • Point is already defined in specs/tri/math/bezier.t27 with f64 fields.
  • Reply is already defined in specs/compiler/zig_field_syntax.t27 with an error field.

tri types ratchet reports Reply as a NEW conflict on master. Once the port rename for #7437 lands, it reports Point too.

Conformance fixture type names must be unique in the corpus (Q66), as in #7315. Fix: give the fixture's two structs fixture-unique names. The behaviour is unchanged, so the t27b expectation row stays pass.

Boundary

  • specs/compiler/zig_field_syntax.t27
  • specs/tri/math/bezier.t27
  • specs/tri/t27b/conformance/postfix_optional.t27

User Scenarios

Requirements

  • FR-001: The fixture specs/tri/t27b/conformance/postfix_optional.t27 MUST rename its Point struct to a fixture-unique name (e.g., PostfixPoint).
  • FR-002: The fixture specs/tri/t27b/conformance/postfix_optional.t27 MUST rename its Reply struct to a fixture-unique name (e.g., PostfixReply).
  • FR-003: The behavioural semantics of the fixture MUST remain unchanged; the t27b expectation row MUST stay pass.

Success Criteria

  • tri types ratchet runs against the corpus and exits with exit 0 (no NEW conflicts for Point or Reply from the fixture).
  • The conformance test suite for t27b includes postfix_optional.t27 and reports 5 tests passed (or the existing pass count unchanged).
  • The modified file specs/tri/t27b/conformance/postfix_optional.t27 contains no definition named Point or Reply.

Activity

  1. added
    needs-boundaryNo '## Boundary' section, so the Queen can reserve nothing for it and no bee can take it
    and removed
    needs-boundaryNo '## Boundary' section, so the Queen can reserve nothing for it and no bee can take it
    on Oct 7, 2026
  2. gHashTag commented on Oct 7, 2026

    @gHashTag
    OwnerAuthor

    Reopened 2026-10-07: the bulk close of issues without a ## Boundary section was reverted by the owner. Nothing to do here; this comment replaces the earlier close notice.

  3. added
    needs-shapeIssue lacks Boundary/Scenarios/Requirements/Success criteria
    on Oct 7, 2026
  4. added a commit that references this issue on Oct 7, 2026
    99a9e64
  5. removed
    needs-shapeIssue lacks Boundary/Scenarios/Requirements/Success criteria
    on Oct 7, 2026
  6. github-actions commented on Oct 18, 2026

    @github-actions
    Contributor

    Re-filed as #10334.

    An attempt claimed this issue on 2026-10-07 and left an empty branch. A dispatch row that has spent its retry ceiling is released once and then keeps its issue for good, which is the right rule for a third identical failure and the wrong outcome for an issue nobody ever attempted twice. The new issue carries the same work, the same boundary, and today's brief.

    Closing this one so the swarm can take the work again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions