fix: bug in extract_function.rs #16009
Merged
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
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Veykril
approved these changes
Dec 7, 2023
|
Thanks! |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There is a little bug in extract_function: It appends
use path::to::ControlFlow;if the function created contains string "ControlFlow".A case below (also in the test named
does_not_import_control_flowwhich will fail in the original code)Now I have changed the condition determining whether adding import statement. Only when the new function body contains ControlFlow::Break or ControlFlow::Continue can the import statement be added.
Last related PR: #10309