Fix false positive in PartialEq check in unconditional_recursion lint
#12137
Conversation
This file contains 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
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
fix-unconditional_recursion-false-positive
branch
from
0cda951
to
1326672
Compare
|
Thank you! @bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
1 similar comment
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
|
@GuillaumeGomez is this fix supposed to already have been shipped in the most recent nightly |
|
It's synced every 15 days. I thin next sync is in ~10 days. If you want a faster sync, please open an issue so someone can do it. |
Good to know! This is fine for me, I just wanted to know if I am running into yet another case that has not yet been covered and should therefore be reported. :) |
|
Don't hesitate to add a new test if none of the existing ones look like yours. ;) |
|
Will do as soon as such a situation arises. :) |
primeos-work
added a commit
to primeos-work/butido
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
The `suspicious_open_options` lint [0] warns that the truncation behaviour should be made explicit when creating new files. We also set `create_new(true)`, which ensures that a new file will *always* be created so we should simply drop `create(true)` since it has no effect anyway: "If `.create_new(true)` is set, `.create()` and `.truncate()` are ignored." [1] The `unconditional_recursion` lint [2] also emits a warning but that's a false positive and should already be fixed in nightly (see [3] for a very similar case and [4] for the PR that should fix it). In our case we're comparing tuples with just two fields of the `Package` structure so it isn't recursive. [0]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/suspicious_open_options [1]: https://docs.rs/tokio/1.34.0/tokio/fs/struct.OpenOptions.html#method.create_new [2]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/unconditional_recursion [3]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12133 [4]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12137
primeos-work
added a commit
to primeos-work/butido
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
The `suspicious_open_options` lint [0] warns that the truncation behaviour should be made explicit when creating new files. We also set `create_new(true)`, which ensures that a new file will *always* be created so we should simply drop `create(true)` since it has no effect anyway: "If `.create_new(true)` is set, `.create()` and `.truncate()` are ignored." [1] The `unconditional_recursion` lint [2] also emits a warning but that's a false positive and should already be fixed in nightly (see [3] for a very similar case and [4] for the PR that should fix it). In our case we're comparing tuples with just two fields of the `Package` structure so it isn't recursive. [0]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/suspicious_open_options [1]: https://docs.rs/tokio/1.34.0/tokio/fs/struct.OpenOptions.html#method.create_new [2]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/unconditional_recursion [3]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12133 [4]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12137 Signed-off-by: Michael Weiss <michael.weiss@eviden.com>
ammernico
pushed a commit
to ammernico/butido
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2024
The `suspicious_open_options` lint [0] warns that the truncation behaviour should be made explicit when creating new files. We also set `create_new(true)`, which ensures that a new file will *always* be created so we should simply drop `create(true)` since it has no effect anyway: "If `.create_new(true)` is set, `.create()` and `.truncate()` are ignored." [1] The `unconditional_recursion` lint [2] also emits a warning but that's a false positive and should already be fixed in nightly (see [3] for a very similar case and [4] for the PR that should fix it). In our case we're comparing tuples with just two fields of the `Package` structure so it isn't recursive. [0]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/suspicious_open_options [1]: https://docs.rs/tokio/1.34.0/tokio/fs/struct.OpenOptions.html#method.create_new [2]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/unconditional_recursion [3]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12133 [4]: rust-lang/rust-clippy#12137 Signed-off-by: Michael Weiss <michael.weiss@eviden.com>
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.
Fixes #12133.
We needed to check for the type of the previous element
in case it's a field.EDIT: After some extra thoughts, no need to check if it's a field, just if it's the same type as
Self.r? @llogiq
changelog: Fix false positive in
PartialEqcheck inunconditional_recursionlint