Improved wording of or_fun_call lint #13528
Merged
+54
−54
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaak <zvavybir@zvavybir.eu>
|
r? @Alexendoo rustbot has assigned @Alexendoo. Use |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Alexendoo
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2024
|
Yeah that's better, thanks! @bors r+ |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
Improved wording of or_fun_call lint
The current wording (e.g. ``use of `ok_or` followed by a function call``) is potentially confusing (at least it confused me) by suggesting that the function that follows the (in this case) `ok_or` is the problem and not the function that is an argument to it.
The code in my program that triggered the confusing message is the following:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or((
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
))
.html_context(stream, lang)?;
```
I thought that `html_context` was the problem and that I should do something along the following lines:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or_else(
(
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
),
html_context(stream, lang),
)?
```
This is of course wrong. My confusion was only cleared up through the help message indicating what I should try instead.
If someone has a better idea of a replacement wording (currently e.g. ``` function call inside of `ok_or` ```), I'm all ears.
changelog [`or_fun_call`]: Improved confusing wording
|
💔 Test failed - checks-action_test |
|
@bors retry |
|
☀️ 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.
The current wording (e.g.
use of `ok_or` followed by a function call) is potentially confusing (at least it confused me) by suggesting that the function that follows the (in this case)ok_oris the problem and not the function that is an argument to it.The code in my program that triggered the confusing message is the following:
I thought that
html_contextwas the problem and that I should do something along the following lines:This is of course wrong. My confusion was only cleared up through the help message indicating what I should try instead.
If someone has a better idea of a replacement wording (currently e.g.
function call inside of `ok_or`), I'm all ears.changelog: none