test: Change the headers! macro to a syntax that rustfmt will format
#4765
+905
−915
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
Rustfmt will format `()` or `[]` macro invocations that contain valid
Rust syntax, but not `{}` invocations. Switch to `()`, and update the
syntax to be valid Rust so rustfmt cleans them up.
Rustfmt was skipping this entire block because it doesn't support comments in the middle of chained `|`. So, add a `=> true` after `IPV6_FLOWINFO_PRIORITY` and the whole closure starts to get formatted again.
tgross35
added
the
stable-nominated
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust-libc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
Rustfmt will format `()` or `[]` macro invocations that contain valid
Rust syntax, but not `{}` invocations. Switch to `()`, and update the
syntax to be valid Rust so rustfmt cleans them up.
(backport <rust-lang#4765>)
(cherry picked from commit a8b1532)
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust-libc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
Rustfmt was skipping this entire block because it doesn't support comments in the middle of chained `|`. So, add a `=> true` after `IPV6_FLOWINFO_PRIORITY` and the whole closure starts to get formatted again. (backport <rust-lang#4765>) (cherry picked from commit 4e4d9c2)
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust-libc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
Rustfmt will format `()` or `[]` macro invocations that contain valid
Rust syntax, but not `{}` invocations. Switch to `()`, and update the
syntax to be valid Rust so rustfmt cleans them up.
(backport <rust-lang#4765>)
(cherry picked from commit a8b1532)
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust-libc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
Rustfmt was skipping this entire block because it doesn't support comments in the middle of chained `|`. So, add a `=> true` after `IPV6_FLOWINFO_PRIORITY` and the whole closure starts to get formatted again. (backport <rust-lang#4765>) (cherry picked from commit 4e4d9c2)
Merged
tgross35
added
stable-applied
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Rustfmt will format
()or[]macro invocations that contain valid Rust syntax, but not{}invocations. Switch to(), and update the syntax to be valid Rust so rustfmt cleans them up.