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

Scope missing_docs_in_private_items to only private items #10324

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2023

Conversation

andrewbanchich
Copy link
Contributor

@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich commented Feb 12, 2023

missing_docs_in_private_items currently detects missing docs for public items as well as private. Since missing_docsalready covers public items, this PR updates missing_docs_in_private_items to only cover private items.

Fixes #1895

changelog: [missing_docs_in_private_items]: Apply lint only to private items (used to be public and private)

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 12, 2023

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @dswij (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Feb 12, 2023
@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich changed the title Scope missing_docs_in_private_items to only private items Scope missing_docs_in_private_items to only private items Feb 12, 2023
@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich force-pushed the fix-missing-private-docs branch from 4599470 to a1c2039 Compare February 12, 2023 02:55
@andrewbanchich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any thoughts on this @dswij or @llogiq ?

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 21, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #10303) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@dswij dswij left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@andrewbanchich Thanks for the PR! and sorry for the delay in reviewing.

The change itself looks good. I'd say that this is not an internal-only change, so adding a changelog in the PR description is a good idea (so it will also be reflected in the changelog).

Otherwise, just a small nit/question

clippy_lints/src/missing_doc.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich force-pushed the fix-missing-private-docs branch 2 times, most recently from d96d832 to 74880ca Compare February 21, 2023 15:18
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 26, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #10401) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich force-pushed the fix-missing-private-docs branch from 74880ca to 49a06ed Compare February 26, 2023 00:18
@andrewbanchich
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dswij Fixed some more conflicts with work others are doing. Everything should be addressed now.

@dswij
Copy link
Member

dswij commented Feb 28, 2023

Thanks for this! @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 28, 2023

📌 Commit 49a06ed has been approved by dswij

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 28, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 49a06ed with merge ba86a99...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 28, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: dswij
Pushing ba86a99 to master...

@bors bors merged commit ba86a99 into rust-lang:master Feb 28, 2023
@andrewbanchich andrewbanchich deleted the fix-missing-private-docs branch June 1, 2023 22:29
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.

missing_docs_in_private_items does not honor allow statements
4 participants