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

Add unnecessary_safety_doc lint #9822

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 13, 2022

Conversation

Veykril
Copy link
Member

@Veykril Veykril commented Nov 9, 2022

changelog: [unnecessary_safety_doc]: Add unnecessary_safety_doc lint

fixes #6880

This lint does not trigger for private functions, just like missing_safety_docs. Reason for that was implementation simplicity and because I figured asking first would make more sense, so if it should trigger for private functions as well let me know and I'll fix that up as well.

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @Jarcho

(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 Nov 9, 2022
@Jarcho
Copy link
Contributor

Jarcho commented Nov 13, 2022

Looks good. Thank you.

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 13, 2022

📌 Commit 146bd1e has been approved by Jarcho

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 13, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 146bd1e with merge 6ba3a00...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 13, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: Jarcho
Pushing 6ba3a00 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 6ba3a00 into rust-lang:master Nov 13, 2022
@Veykril Veykril deleted the unnecessary-safety-doc branch November 14, 2022 08:49
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2022
Move `unnecessary_unsafety_doc` to `pedantic`

This lint was added in #9822. I like the idea, but also agree with #9986 as well. I think it should at least not be warn-by-default. This is one of these cases, where I'd like a group between pedantic and restriction. But I believe that users using `#![warn(clippy::pedantic)]` will know how to enable the lint if they disagree with it.

---

Since the lint is new:

changelog: none

r? `@flip1995` since I'd suggest back porting this, the original PR was merged 16 days ago.

Closes: #9986 (While it doesn't address everything, I believe that this is the best compromise)
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.

Lint request: Safety comment on safe code
4 participants