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

new lint: suspicious_doc_comments #10497

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2023
Merged

Conversation

y21
Copy link
Member

@y21 y21 commented Mar 13, 2023

Fixes #10485.

This PR adds a new lint (suspicious_doc_comments) that triggers when the user writes ///! or /**!.
This is almost certainly a mistake and the user probably meant to write an inner doc comment (//!, /*!) to document the module or crate that this comment is contained in.

changelog: [suspicious_doc_comments]: new lint

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 13, 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. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Mar 13, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 16, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #10481) 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.

Thanks for the PR! and welcome to Clippy.

Some minor comments and suggestions.

Also, not sure if I personally love the name outer_doc_comment_bang, but combined with the allow attribute, it looks neat. I don't know if there is a better name for it though.

clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/ui/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member Author

@y21 y21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, not sure if I personally love the name outer_doc_comment_bang, but combined with the allow attribute, it looks neat. I don't know if there is a better name for it though.

I agree, I had a hard time coming up with a name for this lint. It seems like the linked issue that initially suggested this lint actually has a name suggestion (suspicious_doc_comment), totally missed that. I like that one. I'd be fine with renaming this to suspicious_doc_comment.

clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@y21
Copy link
Member Author

y21 commented Mar 31, 2023

Oops, I didn't mean to start a new review there 😅. The comment I left was in response to changing it from "merging" the spans together to linting the lines individually.

@y21
Copy link
Member Author

y21 commented Apr 1, 2023

I changed it to use mutlispan_sugg instead. Would suspicious_doc_comment be a better name for this lint or is this one fine?

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.

Lint looks good! Just a couple small question/comment, and it'd be good to merge aftewards.

I think suspicious_doc_comments is nice because we have other similarly-named lints. Also note that the name would be plural because of Clippy's lint naming convention

clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/outer_doc_comment_bang.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

This error seems to be common which makes this a very useful lint

From the search, there's a few styles that would be good to add as tests

Both of these would be joined doc comments but in the first the intention would be to have two separate comments still

https://github.com/Twinklebear/tray_rust/blob/9359cb1868a723431214c9fa1fc8c1aef54adae3/src/sampler/morton.rs#L1-L4
https://github.com/openebs/mayastor/blob/aebfd876be16fa2676f311c36276efd6ad3aa019/sysfs/src/lib.rs#L1-L2

Various gaps

https://github.com/massalabs/massa/blob/b27e8416efac19e8ec470e96bb49c74687092ac3/massa-async-pool/src/changes.rs#L14-L16
https://github.com/Keats/jsonwebtoken/blob/8fba79b25459eacc33a80e1ee37ff8eba64079ca/src/jwk.rs#L2-L6

////! is probably a commented out outer doc comment

https://github.com/tanakh/reqwest/blob/147831375613a5e508487b2d85a99104ae1505af/src/lib.rs#L184-L185

It would also be good to see if it works on items that don't generally have doc comments applied to them, like

///! a
use x;

///! b
macro_rules! x {() => {}}

You don't have to explicitly handle all of these, particularly the first two are kind of conflicting, but it'd be good to have tests for them anyway

@y21 y21 changed the title new lint: outer_doc_comment_bang new lint: suspicious_doc_comments Apr 4, 2023
@y21
Copy link
Member Author

y21 commented Apr 4, 2023

https://github.com/Keats/jsonwebtoken/blob/8fba79b25459eacc33a80e1ee37ff8eba64079ca/src/jwk.rs#L2-L6

This is one of the "known-but-deliberately-ignored" problems, I think, so I don't think I can add a test for this, can I? // run-rustfix would make this fail the test

@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

You can put them in a separate suspicious_doc_comments_unfixable.rs without // run-rustfix

@dswij dswij added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties labels Apr 5, 2023
@y21
Copy link
Member Author

y21 commented Apr 5, 2023

Re the label: is there something left to do? I think I have a test for all the cases that were mentioned

@dswij
Copy link
Member

dswij commented Apr 6, 2023

@y21 oh, there's a conflict, so I thought you are still working on it :)

@y21 y21 force-pushed the outer_doc_comment_bang branch 2 times, most recently from 8966407 to 32e9d4b Compare April 6, 2023 20:06
@y21
Copy link
Member Author

y21 commented Apr 6, 2023

Fixed the conflicts and cleaned up the commit history a bit.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #10601) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@y21 y21 force-pushed the outer_doc_comment_bang branch from 32e9d4b to 5d01e6e Compare April 7, 2023 10:05
@dswij dswij added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) labels Apr 7, 2023
@dswij dswij self-requested a review April 7, 2023 11:08
@dswij
Copy link
Member

dswij commented Apr 7, 2023

@y21 Huge thanks for this! Should be a really nice, useful lint

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2023

📌 Commit 5d01e6e has been approved by dswij

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 5d01e6e with merge 4a2cb5a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: dswij
Pushing 4a2cb5a to master...

@bors bors merged commit 4a2cb5a into rust-lang:master Apr 7, 2023
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.

Warn on accidental triple-slash doc comment ///!
5 participants