Skip to content

Add lint unnecessary_option_map_or_else #14662

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 9, 2025
Merged

Add lint unnecessary_option_map_or_else #14662

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 9, 2025
+428 −80

Conversation

pnuts93
Copy link
Contributor

@pnuts93 pnuts93 commented Apr 21, 2025 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

changelog: [unnecessary_option_map_or_else]: Added lint unnecessary_option_map_or_else. As suggested in the issue description, the implementation takes as reference the issue #7328. The tests for lints option_if_let_else and or_fun_call needed to be adjusted to comply with new lint.
fixes #14588

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 21, 2025

r? @llogiq

rustbot has assigned @llogiq.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Apr 21, 2025
llogiq
llogiq reviewed May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@llogiq llogiq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks good in general, I just have a few subtle suggestions. Please use snippet_with_applicability instead of plain snippet. Otherwise, we end up breaking cargo fix. In addition, I'd like to see some tests for other scenarios.

@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor

Jarcho commented Sep 18, 2025

Ping @pnuts93 this needs a rebase.

@llogiq is the review for this done?

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 28, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@llogiq
Copy link
Contributor

llogiq commented Oct 2, 2025

Yes, the review is done. r=me after a rebase.

@pnuts93
Copy link
Contributor Author

pnuts93 commented Oct 2, 2025

Rebase is done

@llogiq llogiq added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit e6febbd Oct 9, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Oct 9, 2025
@pnuts93 pnuts93 deleted the issue-14588-fix branch October 10, 2025 05:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@llogiq llogiq llogiq left review comments

Assignees

@llogiq llogiq

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add unnecessary_option_map_or_else

4 participants

@pnuts93 @rustbot @Jarcho @llogiq