Conformance: another update to LiteralString tests#2186
Merged
Conversation
srittau
added
the
topic: conformance tests
AlexWaygood
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2026
AlexWaygood
left a comment
AlexWaygood
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you! Given that #2179 has already landed, I think this is uncontroversial
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 free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is another case where the conformance suite expects type checkers to infer
str(1)asstr(and prevents them from inferring a more precise type). I replacedstr(1)withinput(), which should always be of typestr. The conformance results did not change.This is basically a follow-up to #2179. There was one more case further down the file, which I missed — apologies.