-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
Let's #[expect] some lints: Stabilize lint_reasons (RFC 2383)
#120924
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
Conversation
|
Alright, looks like most of the CI already agrees with my changes, let's kick off the reviewing process. r? @wesleywiser |
|
The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead. cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
oli-obk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
modulo the bootstrap cfgs in ui tests, the compiler side lgtm
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Implementation looks good to me! If I understand the current state correctly, T-lang has signed off on the previously unresolved questions but has not yet FCP'd stabilization. Is that correct? I think the next step is then for us to start a stabilization FCP. |
Now that you say it, I believe this is correct. The previous stabilization report has been updated and should be sufficient. How do we kick off the FCP, do we ping T-lang in the tacking issue or here? #54503 And should I repost the updated stabilization report, just to have it at the bottom? |
|
Let's go ahead and do the FCP here, just so it's in the same PR that will eventually be merged 🙂 @rust-lang/lang, now that the implementation questions regarding |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #120881) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Let's do it! @rfcbot merge |
|
Team member @tmandry has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns. |
|
As the (embarrassingly absent) RFC author, I am thrilled to see this land! Thank you all for your effort in actually taking my initial ideas and doing all the effort to refine, implement, and ship them. I can't wait to start using it. |
Let's give this another try! The previous stabilization attempt was stalled by some unresolved questions. These have been discussed in a lang team meeting. The last open question, regarding the semantics of the
#[expect]attribute was decided on in #115980I've just updated the stabilization report with the discussed questions and decisions. Luckily, the decision is inline with the current implementation.
This hopefully covers everything. Let's hope that the CI will be green like the spring.
fixes #115980
fixes #54503
For the release note author:
There are two Clippy lints which could be noteworthy:
clippy::allow_attributesto restrict allow attributes in favor of#[expect]or to migrate#[allow]attributes to#[expect]clippy::allow_attributes_without_reasonTo require a reason for#[allow]attributesBoth are allow-by-default lints in the
restrictioncategory.r? @wesleywiser
Tacking Issue: #54503
Stabilization Report: #54503 (comment)
Documentation Update: rust-lang/reference#1237
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Let's expect lints,
With reason clues