convert some unwrap() to expect(format!(...)) #4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
👍 thanks |
johannhof
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2015
convert some unwrap() to expect(format!(...))
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
unwrap()produces panics with no explanation, and on some platforms there are no line numbers in the backtrace even in debug builds (rust-lang/rust#24346).expect()with an informative message is a much better user experience.I didn't convert all instances -- I assume
Regex::newisn't going to fail since it is used with constants, so I left those. And in a lot of cases the relevant condition is checked -- for instanceif x.contains_key(y) { do_something(x.get(y).unwrap()) }-- however, these patterns should ideally be refactored to usematchor other methods to avoid unwrapping.