-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Don't lint let_unit_value
when ()
is explicit
#10844
Conversation
r? @llogiq (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
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.
Thanks for taking this on, also I much like the additions to the tests. One thing that befuddled me is why did you regress from a let
chain to an if_chain!
macro invocation?
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11239) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
r=me with rebase/squash |
Any chance this can be rebased and merged? |
I have tried locally, merging |
a3baf20
to
81f16d8
Compare
@bors r+ |
💔 Test failed - checks-action_dev_test |
81f16d8
to
fd9d330
Compare
@bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
since these are explicitly written (and not the result of a function call or anything else), they should be allowed, as they are both useful in some cases described in #9048
Fixes #9048
changelog: [
let_unit_value
]: Don't lint when()
is explicit