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

needless_lifetimes: ignore lifetimes in explicit self types #8278

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 22, 2022

Conversation

Alexendoo
Copy link
Member

changelog: false positive fix: [needless_lifetimes] no longer lints lifetimes in explicit self types

They're not currently elidable (rust-lang/rust#69064)

Fixes #7296

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @xFrednet

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Jan 14, 2022
Copy link
Member

@xFrednet xFrednet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, I only have one NIT related to the .stderr file. Then it's ready to be merged. 🙃

BTW, if you work on an issue you can also assign yourself with @rustbot claim that indicates that you're working on it and ensures that nobody else claims it.

Also, thank you for your patience, it sadly took some time until I could review this. :)

tests/ui/needless_lifetimes.stderr Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/ui/needless_lifetimes.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@Alexendoo Alexendoo force-pushed the needless-lifetime-explicit-self-ty branch from 47e45ed to 9ef6e21 Compare January 22, 2022 12:29
@Alexendoo
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks!

re: claim I haven't used it as I tend to not be sure if I'm going to submit a change or not until it's more or less complete

No problem at all about the time, I'd say a week is still pretty quick

@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

re: claim I haven't used it as I tend to not be sure if I'm going to submit a change or not until it's more or less complete

Okay, just wanted to make sure you're aware of that, even if I believe you are. With smaller fixes, it also usually doesn't matter. In the last year, I think we only had one instance were two contributors collided in this regard 🙃

@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

Looks good to me, thank you for the fix and quick response!

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 22, 2022

📌 Commit 9ef6e21 has been approved by xFrednet

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 22, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 9ef6e21 with merge 1e546c5...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 22, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: xFrednet
Pushing 1e546c5 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 1e546c5 into rust-lang:master Jan 22, 2022
@Alexendoo Alexendoo deleted the needless-lifetime-explicit-self-ty branch January 22, 2022 13:26
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.

false positive needless_lifetimes when self is &Arc<Self>
4 participants