Add some more comments about what the test does

This changed the lines so the results now differ.

2 files changed, 15 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec
index 01ccc63761..b95df1e6ef 100644
--- a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec
+++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 
-trec.erl:26: Function test/0 has no local return
-trec.erl:27: The call trec:mk_foo_loc(42,any()) will never return since it differs in the 1st argument from the success typing arguments: ('undefined',atom())
-trec.erl:29: Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return
-trec.erl:30: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom()
-trec.erl:36: Function mk_foo_exp/2 has no local return
-trec.erl:37: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom()
+trec.erl:28: Function test/0 has no local return
+trec.erl:29: The call trec:mk_foo_loc(42,any()) will never return since it differs in the 1st argument from the success typing arguments: ('undefined',atom())
+trec.erl:31: Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return
+trec.erl:32: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom()
+trec.erl:38: Function mk_foo_exp/2 has no local return
+trec.erl:39: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom()
diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl
index ba50c3b401..06706162c1 100644
--- a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl
+++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl
@@ -18,20 +18,22 @@
 %%      ('undefined',atom())
 %%   3. Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return
 %%
-%% Arguably, the second warning is not what most users have in mind
-%% when they wrote the type declarations in the 'foo' record, so no
-%% doubt they'll find it confusing. But note that it is also inconsistent!
-%% How come there is a success typing for a function that has no local return?
+%% Arguably, the second warning is not what most users have in mind when
+%% they wrote the type declarations in the 'foo' record, so no doubt
+%% they'll find it confusing. But note that it is also quite confusing!
+%% Many users may be wondering: How come there is a success typing for a
+%% function that has no local return? Running typer on this module
+%% reveals a success typing for this function that is interesting indeed.
 %%
 test() ->
-   mk_foo_loc(42, bar:f()).
+   mk_foo_loc(42, some_mod:some_function()).
 
 mk_foo_loc(A, B) ->
     #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}.
 
 %%
-%% For this function we currently get "has no local return" but we get
-%% no reason; I want us to get a reason.
+%% For this function we used to get a "has no local return" warning
+%% but we got no reason. This has now been fixed.
 %%
 mk_foo_exp(A, B) when is_integer(A) ->
     #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}.