Skip to content

don't trigger blocks_in_conditions when the condition contains a return #14338

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 9, 2025
Merged

don't trigger blocks_in_conditions when the condition contains a return #14338

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 9, 2025

Conversation

lapla-cogito
Copy link
Contributor

fixes #9911

changelog: [blocks_in_conditions]: don't trigger the lint when the condition contains a return

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 2, 2025

r? @Manishearth

rustbot has assigned @Manishearth.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Mar 2, 2025
samueltardieu
samueltardieu reviewed Mar 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
samueltardieu
samueltardieu requested changes Mar 8, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a small refactoring and this looks ok.

samueltardieu
samueltardieu approved these changes Mar 8, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, I have a nit but it is not blocking. @Manishearth you can queue it if it's ok with you.

clippy_lints/src/blocks_in_conditions.rs
}

// Linting should not be triggered to cases where `return` is included in the condition.
// #9911
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu Mar 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: I personally dislike using a issue number here (it is already present in the tests which would fail if this was removed), but there are already a few instances of it (but not many) in the sources. This is different from using "TODO see issue #xxx" because in this case there is an action needed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's fine to have context like this noted

@Manishearth Manishearth added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 1b62885 Mar 9, 2025
11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Manishearth Manishearth Manishearth left review comments

@samueltardieu samueltardieu samueltardieu approved these changes

Assignees

@Manishearth Manishearth

Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

blocks_in_conditions can't deal with return expression in condition
4 participants
@lapla-cogito @rustbot @samueltardieu @Manishearth