Skip to content

Don't lint let_unit_value when () is explicit #10844

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 5, 2024
Merged

Don't lint let_unit_value when () is explicit #10844

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 5, 2024
+71 −127

Conversation

Centri3
Copy link
Member

@Centri3 Centri3 commented May 30, 2023 •
edited
Loading

since these are explicitly written (and not the result of a function call or anything else), they should be allowed, as they are both useful in some cases described in #9048

Fixes #9048

changelog: [let_unit_value]: Don't lint when () is explicit

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 30, 2023

r? @llogiq

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label May 30, 2023
llogiq
llogiq reviewed Jun 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@llogiq llogiq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for taking this on, also I much like the additions to the tests. One thing that befuddled me is why did you regress from a let chain to an if_chain! macro invocation?

@danielhenrymantilla danielhenrymantilla mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2023
Merged
danielhenrymantilla
danielhenrymantilla reviewed Jun 12, 2023
View reviewed changes
danielhenrymantilla
danielhenrymantilla reviewed Jun 12, 2023
View reviewed changes
@Centri3 Centri3 mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2023
Open
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 11, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11239) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

r=me with rebase/squash

@kupiakos
Copy link

Any chance this can be rebased and merged?

@cocodery cocodery mentioned this pull request Dec 28, 2023
Closed
@cocodery
Copy link
Contributor

I have tried locally, merging master branch and solving one small conflict will be fine.
And related Issue#12017 can tag fixed in the first comment.
@Centri3

@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

📌 Commit 81f16d8 has been approved by Alexendoo

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 81f16d8 with merge 43f39b5...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of #10844 - Centri3:let_unit_value, r=Alexendoo
43f39b5 
Don't lint `let_unit_value` when `()` is explicit

since these are explicitly written (and not the result of a function call or anything else), they should be allowed, as they are both useful in some cases described in #9048

Fixes #9048

changelog: [`let_unit_value`]: Don't lint when `()` is explicit
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

💔 Test failed - checks-action_dev_test

@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

📌 Commit fd9d330 has been approved by Alexendoo

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

⌛ Testing commit fd9d330 with merge 394f63f...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 5, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: Alexendoo
Pushing 394f63f to master...

@bors bors merged commit 394f63f into rust-lang:master Jan 5, 2024
as-com referenced this pull request in capnproto/capnproto-rust May 27, 2024
@as-com @dwrensha
Forbid use of as_slice when unaligned feature is enabled
1c57b0c
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Reviewers

@llogiq llogiq llogiq left review comments

@Alexendoo Alexendoo Alexendoo approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@danielhenrymantilla danielhenrymantilla danielhenrymantilla left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees

@llogiq llogiq

Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

let_unit_value should be allowed when I explicitly write "let () = ..."
8 participants
@Centri3 @rustbot @bors @Alexendoo @kupiakos @cocodery @llogiq @danielhenrymantilla