Work around an eager clippy warning #154
Merged
Conversation
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
|
✔️ Deploy Preview for dada-lang ready! 🔨 Explore the source changes: f3c6134 🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/dada-lang/deploys/6230b3bd8514e70008df2c27 😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-154--dada-lang.netlify.app |
|
This looks good. bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2022
154: Work around an eager clippy warning r=nikomatsakis a=lqd As seen in #152 (comment) and #153 (comment), it seems a recent nightly has introduced a false positive in the `needless_match` lint, causing CI to fail as it denies warnings. Just for reference, it looks side-effects in branches are missed, and thought to be replaceable by the matched Option. ```rust pub fn side_effect() -> Option<String> { if let Some(r) = op() { Some(r) } else { println!("side-effect"); None } } ``` We could ignore the lint, much like other lints are sometimes ignored, or work around it like this PR. Which do you prefer ? Co-authored-by: Rémy Rakic <[email protected]>
|
Build failed: |
|
That's quite a streak we got there, now an ICE on nightly, hitting issue 94998 |
|
This will be fixed in tomorrow's nightly |
|
ok :) |
|
bors r+ let's try again in case we're lucky |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2022
154: Work around an eager clippy warning r=nikomatsakis a=lqd As seen in #152 (comment) and #153 (comment), it seems a recent nightly has introduced a false positive in the `needless_match` lint, causing CI to fail as it denies warnings. Just for reference, it looks side-effects in branches are missed, and thought to be replaceable by the matched Option. ```rust pub fn side_effect() -> Option<String> { if let Some(r) = op() { Some(r) } else { println!("side-effect"); None } } ``` We could ignore the lint, much like other lints are sometimes ignored, or work around it like this PR. Which do you prefer ? Co-authored-by: Rémy Rakic <[email protected]>
|
Build failed: |
|
Issues with GH and CI prevented the fix from landing yesterday. This will still fail for at least another few hours. Thankfully, the fix has landed by now. |
|
bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
As seen in #152 (comment) and #153 (comment), it seems a recent nightly has introduced a false positive in the
needless_matchlint, causing CI to fail as it denies warnings.Just for reference, it looks side-effects in branches are missed, and thought to be replaceable by the matched Option.
We could ignore the lint, much like other lints are sometimes ignored, or work around it like this PR. Which do you prefer ?