Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix explicit_into_iter_loop #6982

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2021
Merged

Conversation

Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor

@Jarcho Jarcho commented Mar 27, 2021

fixes: #6900

changelog: Only lint when into_iter is an implementation of IntoIterator

@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 27, 2021
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, just a small code-style NIT. r=me with that fixed.

clippy_lints/src/loops/explicit_into_iter_loop.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@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 Mar 31, 2021
@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the explicit_into_iter_loop_fp branch from ccf9bd2 to ab3101a Compare March 31, 2021 21:11
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

flip1995 commented Apr 1, 2021

@bors r+

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 1, 2021

📌 Commit ab3101a has been approved by flip1995

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 1, 2021

⌛ Testing commit ab3101a with merge f8ec048...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2021
Fix `explicit_into_iter_loop`

fixes: #6900

changelog: Only lint when `into_iter` is an implementation of `IntoIterator`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 1, 2021

💥 Test timed out

@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jarcho commented Apr 5, 2021

No idea what went wrong there. Spurious failure?

@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

xFrednet commented Apr 5, 2021

Bors had some problems today. It seems to be up in running again we could at least merge some other PRs with a retry. So somebody just has to queue this PR again. I'll ask in the Clippy Zulip if a member could do that 🙃

@flip1995
Copy link
Member

flip1995 commented Apr 6, 2021

I'm back from my easter slumber! 🐇 🥚

@bors retry

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2021

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

  1. git checkout explicit_into_iter_loop_fp (switch to your branch)
  2. git fetch upstream master (retrieve the latest master)
  3. git rebase upstream/master -p (rebase on top of it)
  4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
  5. git push self explicit_into_iter_loop_fp --force-with-lease (update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message
Auto-merging clippy_lints/src/loops/mod.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in clippy_lints/src/loops/mod.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

@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.

Only lint when `into_iter` is an implementation of `IntoIterator`
Minor cleanups
@Jarcho Jarcho force-pushed the explicit_into_iter_loop_fp branch from ab3101a to 6b5778e Compare April 6, 2021 16:12
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

Now it should work.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 12, 2021

📌 Commit 6b5778e has been approved by flip1995

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 12, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 6b5778e with merge c3ef585...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 12, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: flip1995
Pushing c3ef585 to master...

@bors bors merged commit c3ef585 into rust-lang:master Apr 12, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

False positive explicit_into_iter_loop on an into_iter method with type parameter
5 participants