Skip to content
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.

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

Cleanup #275

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2020
Merged

Cleanup #275

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2020

Conversation

UebelAndre
Copy link
Collaborator

@UebelAndre UebelAndre commented Nov 1, 2020

This is work pulled out of #276

Changes:

  1. renamed settings::testing to settings::tests to be consistent with other modules
  2. Ran cargo fmt

@UebelAndre UebelAndre mentioned this pull request Nov 1, 2020
// Clean out the "remote" directory and guarantee that it exists
if remote_dir.exists() {
for entry in glob::glob(&format!("{}/BUILD*.bazel", &remote_dir.display().to_string()))? {
for entry in glob::glob(&format!(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: I am not the biggest fan of everything_all_in_one_place(at(all(times)), so_its_hard_to_read)

Maybe if its a cleanup:

let build_glob = format!("{}/BUILD*.bazel", remote_dir.display());
for entry in glob::glob(&build_glob)? {

I also think the display().to_string() is a bit needless, either we want display semantics (aka just use the std::path::Display struct directly) or to_string_lossy() is a better fit

?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated. I might have misread what you wrote, I stuck with std::path::Display but are you saying to_string_lossy is better?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No I was more suggesting options

impl/src/settings.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@UebelAndre
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@GregBowyer this is ready for another review

@GregBowyer
Copy link
Contributor

👍 LGTM

@UebelAndre
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@acmcarther this PR is ready for review

Copy link
Collaborator

@dfreese dfreese left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine to me, but can you please update the PR to be more specific about both what is happening, and why?

@UebelAndre
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dfreese done

@dfreese dfreese merged commit 9248dc3 into google:master Nov 2, 2020
@UebelAndre UebelAndre deleted the cleanup branch November 3, 2020 00:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants