Skip to content

implicit_return improvements #6951

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 4 commits into from
Apr 30, 2021
Merged

implicit_return improvements #6951

merged 4 commits into from
Apr 30, 2021

Conversation

Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor

@Jarcho Jarcho commented Mar 22, 2021

fixes: #6940

changelog: Fix implicit_return suggestion for async functions
changelog: Improve implicit_return suggestions when returning the result of a macro
changelog: Check for break expressions inside a loop which are then implicitly returned
changelog: Allow all diverging functions in implicit_return, not just panic functions

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @flip1995

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Mar 22, 2021
@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch 6 times, most recently from 11916da to ffa25ec Compare March 23, 2021 12:32
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #6971) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from ffa25ec to edb76df Compare March 26, 2021 20:44
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

Sorry for taking so long with my reviews recently...

Is there any chance you can split this PR in multiple commits?

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from edb76df to 267834e Compare April 2, 2021 21:28
@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jarcho commented Apr 2, 2021

Ended up doing a bit of a rewrite at the same time. The code would be simpler to add a return to the top level expression rather to each individual sub expression (e.g. conditionals get a return added to each branch), but that would change the behaviour of the lint.

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from 267834e to f6e7a5a Compare April 2, 2021 21:53
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #6931) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from f6e7a5a to 88dc123 Compare April 6, 2021 16:14
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #7043) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from 88dc123 to 6d6f933 Compare April 6, 2021 20:32
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #7046) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from 6d6f933 to a7ddaf6 Compare April 7, 2021 12:41
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 12, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #7047) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

flip1995
flip1995 reviewed Apr 12, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@flip1995 flip1995 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! This LGTM overall. I still have to double check the lint_implicit_returns function, because I only skimmed it in this review round. I only found two documentation/style NITs.

@flip1995
Copy link
Member

You don't have to keep rebasing your branch. Best thing to do here is to just add commits and rebase/squash it once before merge. It's easier for me to review and you don't have to resolve conflicts every other day.

@flip1995 flip1995 added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties labels Apr 12, 2021
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

@Jarcho I'd still like to see this change: #6951 (comment) Otherwise this LGTM.

@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jarcho commented Apr 22, 2021

Looks like I forgot to change that.

Jarcho added 2 commits April 22, 2021 09:13
@Jarcho
Improve implicit_return
22f8c13 
Better suggestions when returning macro calls.
Suggest changeing all the break expressions in a loop, not just the final statement.
Don't lint divergent functions.
Don't suggest returning the result of any divergent fuction.
@Jarcho
Fix implicit_return suggestion for async functions
74cf5f2
@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the implicit_return_fp branch from 7154e32 to 3d793f3 Compare April 22, 2021 13:38
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 30, 2021

📌 Commit 3d793f3 has been approved by flip1995

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 30, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 3d793f3 with merge 5e49c4b...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 30, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: flip1995
Pushing 5e49c4b to master...

@bors bors merged commit 5e49c4b into rust-lang:master Apr 30, 2021
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2021
Merged
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Reviewers

@flip1995 flip1995 flip1995 left review comments

Assignees

@flip1995 flip1995

Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

implicit_return suggestion is invalid syntax
4 participants
@Jarcho @rust-highfive @bors @flip1995