Deny all the pedantic clippy lints that we already obey #2201
Conversation
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
2 times, most recently
from
42c8ac9 to
3fb999e
Compare
mulkieran
changed the title
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
from
3fb999e to
d841277
Compare
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
from
d841277 to
179b917
Compare
|
rebased. |
|
pedantic beta clippy lint has bad suggestion (probably also false positive): rust-lang/rust-clippy#5822. |
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
from
53f2d31 to
2bf4014
Compare
|
rebased. |
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
4 times, most recently
from
a81e8da to
55066cd
Compare
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
from
55066cd to
0b86e15
Compare
|
rebased. |
mulkieran
changed the title
|
stratisd failure clearly spurious. |
Allow the ones that we don't obey. We obey far more than we disobey. In due course, remove the allows and change the code for pedantic lints that we should obey. Comment the others to explain why we don't obey them. If, through experience, we learn that there is some pedantic lint that we were obeying, but that is not helpful, add the lint to the list of allowed pedantic lints, accompanied with a comment explaining why it is allowed. Signed-off-by: mulhern <[email protected]>
mulkieran
force-pushed
the
develop-2.1.0-pedantic-lints
branch
from
0b86e15 to
b6b2edc
Compare
|
rebased. |
| -A clippy::single_match_else \ | ||
| -A clippy::too_many_lines \ | ||
| -A clippy::unseparated_literal_suffix \ | ||
| -A clippy::unused_self |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm curious about this one. This may actually be good information to have. We could then theoretically remove self if it's not used which I could see improving code quality so that a reference to self is not taken if it's not needed, allowing us to have slightly more flexibility when bumping up against the borrow checker.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, take that allow off and the results are actually somewhat interesting. But I think this makes sense to merge for now. You can pursue that later if you want to, or maybe it would be a good learning opportunity for @lleshchi.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll approve then. Would you like me to file another issue to follow up on that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll approve then. Would you like me to file another issue to follow up on that?
Yes, please do.
Related: stratis-storage/project#97