Skip to content

Conversation

nickdrozd
Copy link
Contributor

changelog:none

Hello! This PR enables some nursery lints in the dogfood test. For easy review, one lint is enable per commit. They are pretty straightforward (with the exception of useless_let_if_seq, which gets into some trickier control flow). Only one false positive turned up.

Happy to make any changes. Would like to get this merged quickly if possible, to avoid conflicts.

Continuation of #15625 and #15512

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 7, 2025

Some changes occurred in clippy_lints/src/doc

cc @notriddle

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Oct 7, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 7, 2025

r? @Alexendoo

rustbot has assigned @Alexendoo.
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

Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe putting the lints to enable in a const array and calling .arg() in a loop will be easier to maintain.

View changes since this review

@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor

Jarcho commented Oct 7, 2025

Don't enable redundant_clone, it's currently incredibly broken.

@nickdrozd nickdrozd force-pushed the dogfood branch 2 times, most recently from 73e253e to dde093f Compare October 7, 2025 16:14
@nickdrozd
Copy link
Contributor Author

Per review: Made minor fixes. Cut redundant_clone. Extracted deny lints to array.

Extra change: Enabled nursery altogether and switched from explicit deny / opt-in to explicit allow / opt-out. I think this gives a clear sense of what exactly is and isn't being run, what could be enabled, which lints are verbose, have problems, etc. It is generally in the spirit of "makes clippy eat what it produces". But of course, I can revert it too.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 7, 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants