[implied_bounds_in_impls]: avoid linting on overlapping associated tys
#11881
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
|
r? @Alexendoo (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #12269) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
With the refactor I did in #12269 the diff looks much better and should hopefully be easier to review |
Alexendoo
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2024
|
It did indeed, thanks! @bors r+ |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
[`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: avoid linting on overlapping associated tys Fixes #11880 Before this change, we were simply ignoring associated types (except for suggestion purposes), because of an incorrect assumption (see the comment that I also removed). For something like ```rs trait X { type T; } trait Y: X { type T; } // Can't constrain `X::T` through `Y` fn f() -> impl X<T = i32> + Y<T = u32> { ... } ``` We now avoid linting if the implied bound (`X<T = i32>`) "names" associated types that also exists in the implying trait (`trait Y`). Here that would be the case. But if we only wrote `impl X + Y<T = u32>` then that's ok because `X::T` was never constrained in the first place. I haven't really thought about how this interacts with GATs, but I think it's fine. Fine as in, it might create false negatives, but hopefully no false positives. (The diff is slightly annoying because of formatting things. Really the only thing that changed in the if chain is extracting the `implied_by_def_id` which is needed for getting associated types from the trait, and of course actually checking for overlap) cc `@Jarcho` ? idk if you want to review this or not. I assume you looked into this code a bit to find this bug. changelog: [`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: avoid linting when associated type from supertrait can't be constrained through the implying trait bound
|
💔 Test failed - checks-action_test |
|
@bors retry |
|
maybe now? |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
[`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: avoid linting on overlapping associated tys Fixes #11880 Before this change, we were simply ignoring associated types (except for suggestion purposes), because of an incorrect assumption (see the comment that I also removed). For something like ```rs trait X { type T; } trait Y: X { type T; } // Can't constrain `X::T` through `Y` fn f() -> impl X<T = i32> + Y<T = u32> { ... } ``` We now avoid linting if the implied bound (`X<T = i32>`) "names" associated types that also exists in the implying trait (`trait Y`). Here that would be the case. But if we only wrote `impl X + Y<T = u32>` then that's ok because `X::T` was never constrained in the first place. I haven't really thought about how this interacts with GATs, but I think it's fine. Fine as in, it might create false negatives, but hopefully no false positives. (The diff is slightly annoying because of formatting things. Really the only thing that changed in the if chain is extracting the `implied_by_def_id` which is needed for getting associated types from the trait, and of course actually checking for overlap) cc `@Jarcho` ? idk if you want to review this or not. I assume you looked into this code a bit to find this bug. changelog: [`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: avoid linting when associated type from supertrait can't be constrained through the implying trait bound
|
💔 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.
Fixes #11880
Before this change, we were simply ignoring associated types (except for suggestion purposes), because of an incorrect assumption (see the comment that I also removed).
For something like
We now avoid linting if the implied bound (
X<T = i32>) "names" associated types that also exists in the implying trait (trait Y). Here that would be the case.But if we only wrote
impl X + Y<T = u32>then that's ok becauseX::Twas never constrained in the first place.I haven't really thought about how this interacts with GATs, but I think it's fine. Fine as in, it might create false negatives, but hopefully no false positives.
(The diff is slightly annoying because of formatting things. Really the only thing that changed in the if chain is extracting the
implied_by_def_idwhich is needed for getting associated types from the trait, and of course actually checking for overlap)cc @Jarcho ? idk if you want to review this or not. I assume you looked into this code a bit to find this bug.
changelog: [
implied_bounds_in_impls]: avoid linting when associated type from supertrait can't be constrained through the implying trait bound