EXPERIMENT: intrinsic-test: (Bug fix?) Reverse has_constraints() condition

a4lg · a4lg · commit bd55008a951d · 2025-05-29T08:21:27.000Z
It seems it returns true when *no* constraints are found, opposite to
the expected behavior of the function name.

This commit reverses condition to test whether this is a real bug or not.
diff --git a/crates/intrinsic-test/src/common/argument.rs b/crates/intrinsic-test/src/common/argument.rs
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ where
 
     pub fn has_constraint(&self) -> bool {
         // TODO: investigation (is_none is okay?)
-        self.constraint.is_none()
+        self.constraint.is_some()
     }
 
     pub fn type_and_name_from_c(arg: &str) -> (&str, &str) {

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ where`
`34`	`34`
`35`	`35`	`pub fn has_constraint(&self) -> bool {`
`36`	`36`	`// TODO: investigation (is_none is okay?)`
`37`		`- self.constraint.is_none()`
	`37`	`+ self.constraint.is_some()`
`38`	`38`	`}`
`39`	`39`
`40`	`40`	`pub fn type_and_name_from_c(arg: &str) -> (&str, &str) {`