Remove except in suspicious_else_formatting
#3960
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
This was causing two different ICEs in rust-lang#3741. The first was fixed in rust-lang#3925. The second one is fixed with this commit: We just don't `expect` anymore. If the snippet doesn't contain an `else`, we stop emitting the lint because it's not a suspiciously formatted else anyway.
phansch
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
flip1995
reviewed
Apr 14, 2019
clippy_lints/src/formatting.rs
Outdated
| let else_pos = else_snippet.find("else").expect("there must be a `else` here"); | ||
| // this will be a span from the closing ‘}’ of the “then” block (excluding) to | ||
| // the | ||
| // “if” of the “else if” block (excluding) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT: formatting
Is it possible to add a test for this ICE? Otherwise r=me with formatting fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit fixed =)
I tried since yesterday but couldn't come up with a test case without external dependencies on relm and gtk. I think it's fine to merge it in this case since the ICE was triggered by an explicit expect in our code and it would only regress if we were to add it back.
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 289a9af has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2019
Remove `except` in suspicious_else_formatting 96c34e8 contains the fix: This was causing two different ICEs in #3741. The first was fixed in #3925. The second one is fixed with this commit: We just don't `expect` anymore. If the snippet doesn't contain an `else`, we stop emitting the lint because it's not a suspiciously formatted else anyway. Unfortunately I wasn't able to provide a minimal test case, but I think it's fine since it's just ignoring the `None` case now. And ad27e3f cleans up the lint code to use `if_chain`. Fixes #3741 once more.
|
Just a small nit, but the PR and the branch name use "except" instead of "expect". 😆 |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor |
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.
96c34e8 contains the fix:
This was causing two different ICEs in #3741. The first was fixed in #3925.
The second one is fixed with this commit: We just don't
expectanymore.If the snippet doesn't contain an
else, we stop emitting the lint becauseit's not a suspiciously formatted else anyway.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to provide a minimal test case, but I think it's
fine since it's just ignoring the
Nonecase now.And ad27e3f cleans up the lint code to use
if_chain.Fixes #3741 once more.