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

Don't emit doc_markdown lint for missing backticks if it's inside a quote #12472

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 14, 2024

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Fixes #10262.

changelog: Don't emit doc_markdown lint for missing backticks if it's inside a quote

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 12, 2024

r? @blyxyas

rustbot has assigned @blyxyas.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Mar 12, 2024
Copy link
Member

@blyxyas blyxyas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a mini comment. Does this work with <q> and <quote>? It would be nice to have that, but it's not a requirement. Meow meow ✨

@@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ fn check_word(cx: &LateContext<'_>, word: &str, span: Span, code_level: isize) {
}

// We assume that mixed-case words are not meant to be put inside backticks. (Issue #2343)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you add a comment like this one, but mentioning this issue? Meow meow 🐱

Suggested change
// We assume that mixed-case words are not meant to be put inside backticks. (Issue #2343)
// We assume that mixed-case words are not meant to be put inside backticks. (Issue #2343)
// We also assume that quotations should not be changed from the original source, so we will not lint in those. (Issue #10262)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good idea! Done.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Just a mini comment. Does this work with <q> and <quote>? It would be nice to have that, but it's not a requirement. Meow meow ✨

It doesn't, I'll extend the lint to support it.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I extended support for <blockquote> and <q> HTML tags (there is no <quote> tag) and added the missing comment.

Copy link
Member

@blyxyas blyxyas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks! ❤️

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

You forgot to r+ it. 😆

@blyxyas
Copy link
Member

blyxyas commented Mar 14, 2024

I was giving it the post-approval pass. 6th pass of my review process.

bors meow meow

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

📌 Commit 03d7ae8 has been approved by blyxyas

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 03d7ae8 with merge b667d02...

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

What is the post-approval pass?

@blyxyas
Copy link
Member

blyxyas commented Mar 14, 2024

The post approval pass is the "Wait lemme just re-read the PR just before merging again". It's one of the steps of my book The review process and its intricacies

You have 11 reviewing steps:

  1. Check the issue that it's solving: "What is this for again?"
  2. Check for the surface-level errors.
  3. Yeah, I think this PR is good
  4. If that day you're feeling extra-helpful, read the PR line by line and check if you can see any logical errors.
  5. Approve it.
  6. Re-read the PR again.
  7. Re-read the PR again. We don't want to merge a typo into the codebase.
  8. Re-read the PR again.
  9. Merge! ✨ ❤️
  10. An issue has been raised and someone pinged you. Suffer from impostor syndrome.
  11. Repeat.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: blyxyas
Pushing b667d02 to master...

@bors bors merged commit b667d02 into rust-lang:master Mar 14, 2024
5 checks passed
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the fix-10262 branch March 14, 2024 21:51
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Wow, maybe I should follow your example on this. 😆

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

doc_markdown lint should retreat when citing
4 participants