Lintcheck: Refactor structs and only take one version per crate #13080
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
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
xFrednet
force-pushed
the
00000-lintcheck-mv-stuff-and-things
branch
from
c84e2b7 to
c3a2406
Compare
|
Shout out to @bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
For some time now I had the feeling that lintcheck's main file has been too large. This PR simply moves some structs into new submodules.
I've also changed the
.tomlstructure slightly to only accept one version per crate. AFAIK, we haven't use multiple versions before. If we want to test different versions, we can simply just add a second entry. That's what lintcheck does internally anyways.I wanted to have these changes in separate commits, but then accidentally squashed them... So sorry 😅
r? @Alexendoo If you think this is not really worth a proper review, since it's mostly a move refactoring in an internal tool, you can also
r=xFredneton this PR.changelog: none