Trigger use_self lint in local macros
#3627
Merged
+38
−4
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
detrumi
force-pushed
the
use_self_local_macro
branch
from
d7db1b2
to
407ff74
Compare
flip1995
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 407ff74 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2019
Trigger `use_self` lint in local macros Closes #2098 The test currently only covers local macros. #2098 suggested this: > You could add the macro in question into the `mini_macro` subcrate But that doesn't work for a `macro_rules`: ``` error: cannot export macro_rules! macros from a `proc-macro` crate type currently ``` So I suggest leaving out the test for external macros, as using `in_external_macro` seems straigtforward enough. Alternatives would be to use to add an additional crate (overkill if you ask me), or test with a `proc-macro`.
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
flip1995
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
This should re- |
|
@bors retry |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2019
Trigger `use_self` lint in local macros Closes #2098 The test currently only covers local macros. #2098 suggested this: > You could add the macro in question into the `mini_macro` subcrate But that doesn't work for a `macro_rules`: ``` error: cannot export macro_rules! macros from a `proc-macro` crate type currently ``` So I suggest leaving out the test for external macros, as using `in_external_macro` seems straigtforward enough. Alternatives would be to use to add an additional crate (overkill if you ask me), or test with a `proc-macro`.
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors retry |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2019
Trigger `use_self` lint in local macros Closes #2098 The test currently only covers local macros. #2098 suggested this: > You could add the macro in question into the `mini_macro` subcrate But that doesn't work for a `macro_rules`: ``` error: cannot export macro_rules! macros from a `proc-macro` crate type currently ``` So I suggest leaving out the test for external macros, as using `in_external_macro` seems straigtforward enough. Alternatives would be to use to add an additional crate (overkill if you ask me), or test with a `proc-macro`.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust-clippy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2024
Automatic Rustup
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.
Closes #2098
The test currently only covers local macros. #2098 suggested this:
But that doesn't work for a
macro_rules:So I suggest leaving out the test for external macros, as using
in_external_macroseems straigtforward enough. Alternatives would be to use to add an additional crate (overkill if you ask me), or test with aproc-macro.