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

internal: Work through temporarily allowed clippy lints, part 2 #16451

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Feb 1, 2024

Conversation

Urhengulas
Copy link
Contributor

Another follow-up to #16401.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jan 30, 2024
@Urhengulas Urhengulas marked this pull request as ready for review January 30, 2024 16:11
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 30, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #16394) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@Veykril Veykril left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like an import is missing or something

@Urhengulas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Seems like an import is missing or something

Fixed

@rustbot rustbot added has-merge-commits S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 31, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 31, 2024

There are merge commits (commits with multiple parents) in your changes. We have a no merge policy so these commits will need to be removed for this pull request to be merged.

You can start a rebase with the following commands:

$ # rebase
$ git rebase -i master
$ # delete any merge commits in the editor that appears
$ git push --force-with-lease

The following commits are merge commits:

@rustbot rustbot removed has-merge-commits S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 31, 2024
@Urhengulas
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 31, 2024
@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Jan 31, 2024

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 31, 2024

📌 Commit d1d9cde has been approved by Veykril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 31, 2024

⌛ Testing commit d1d9cde with merge 698dbf8...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2024
internal: Work through temporarily allowed clippy lints, part 2

Another follow-up to #16401.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 31, 2024

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@@ -538,7 +540,7 @@ impl CargoActor {
}

enum CargoMessage {
CompilerArtifact(cargo_metadata::Artifact),
CompilerArtifact(Box<cargo_metadata::Artifact>),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This came up a couple of times before and I think bjorn3 pointed put that most of the time we're going to have this variant, so making this change will cause a lot of allocations.

I don't know if the cost of moving the large struct around is lower or higher than that of the allocations, though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am fine with any choice. I was just going with the clippy recommendation here.

I'd propose that we go with it and if someone takes the time to compare the two options we potentially revert it and disable the clippy lint for it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should revert this and allow the lint, there is little reason for this change. But I'll do that in a follow up PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Feb 1, 2024

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 1, 2024

📌 Commit df2c7a6 has been approved by Veykril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 1, 2024

⌛ Testing commit df2c7a6 with merge 850ba2f...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 1, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Veykril
Pushing 850ba2f to master...

@bors bors merged commit 850ba2f into rust-lang:master Feb 1, 2024
10 checks passed
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2024
@Urhengulas Urhengulas deleted the satisfy-clippy branch February 1, 2024 15:22
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 (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants