refactor(profiling): more try_reserve fixes#2010
Conversation
Clippy Allow Annotation ReportComparing clippy allow annotations between branches:
Summary by Rule
Annotation Counts by File
Annotation Stats by Crate
About This ReportThis report tracks Clippy allow annotations for specific rules, showing how they've changed in this PR. Decreasing the number of these annotations generally improves code quality. |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2010 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 72.67% 72.70% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 452 452
Lines 74889 74895 +6
==========================================
+ Hits 54427 54452 +25
+ Misses 20462 20443 -19
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
🎉 All green!❄️ No new flaky tests detected 🎯 Code Coverage (details) 🔗 Commit SHA: b573dd3 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback! |
Artifact Size Benchmark Reportaarch64-alpine-linux-musl
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
libdatadog-x64-windows
libdatadog-x86-windows
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
fa94737 to
b573dd3
Compare
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
The expected merge time in
Tests failed on this commit 0ac6a82: What to do next?
|
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
The expected merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
This migrates more
Veccode to usetry_reserve*.Makes two helpers,
try_clone_optional_tags, andtry_into_vec_files(which replacedinto_vec_filesand fixes some other panics in this helper too)..Motivation
Trying to reduce the places we panic without breaking APIs.
Additional Notes
This is based on #2002, so that should merge first.
There are still
Vec::with_capacitycalls in the code, but I think all of the remainder require either API breaks or parallel helpers, which I may investigate in future PRs.How to test the change?
Should test all the same!