| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I find this names confusing. To my mind "is" implies a function
returning `bool`.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I find these names confusing. To my mind "check" implies a function
returning `Result<(), _>`.
Some other APIs use `unwrap` here but I think `if` is good.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It wouldn't make much sense for one concrete type to be unwrappable
variously as different inner types.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we have `bounds()`, we can centralise this implementation and
delete the implementations.
I don't think it's necessary to provide an engineered safeguard
against downstreams overriding this method. Any existing implementors
of this trait will break because they must provide `.bounds()` now,
which is an opportunity to notice that the `is_valid_at` can be
deleted. But, if it is not deleted, nothing goes wrong.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This was always TimeValidityError. And we want to rely on that so we
can do the validity checking more centrally.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This makes a `TimeBound` much more convenient to work with, will allow
more centralisation.
This replaces temporary `bound` inherent method on `TimeRangeBound`.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This module has only few public items - currently, only one. And it
has the word "time" in it. It doesn't make sense to expect callers to
write `timed::`.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I noticed this clumsiness while passing. We can't do the same
for SystemTime because we have the wasm SystemTime thing too :-/.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
For consistency with TimeRangeBounds (currently TimerangeBounds).
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Removed unnecessary lint
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This commit updates Timebound's rustdoc to require inclusiveness when
checking the timeliness of a given object.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit executes maint/add_warning with the just added change to
deny string slices except in tests.
I recommend auditing this by checking out the previous commit followed
by running the script yourself and then verifying that the diff is
identical to this commit.
This commit makes cargo clippy fail. We will add exceptions in the next
commit.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`clippy::collapsible_if` started triggering after bumping the MSRV to
1.88.
Since this triggers from a lot of places, and since there even are a
couple of instances where we explicitly allow `clippy::collapsible_ifs`,
I've opened #2342 for deciding what to do about it.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This adds the lint to all our crates.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Run maint/add_warning
|
| |
|
|
| |
This feature has been removed from nightly, in favor of doc_cfg.
|
| |
|
|
| |
See #2060.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Denies 'mod.rs' files for consistency.
https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#mod_module_files
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In 1.83, this warning triggers on many of our crates.
We're thinking of fixing them all, but for now,
we're going to disable the warning.
This is part of #1765.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This commit is automatically generated.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #950.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This warning kind of snuck up on us! (See #748) For now, let's
disable it. (I've cleaned it up in a couple of examples, since
those are meant to be more idiomatic and user-facing.)
Closes #748.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Apparently cargo fmt doesn't like these, which my perl rune didn't
delete.
This commit is precisely the result of `cargo fmt`.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The feature we want is `#[doc = include_str!("README.md")]`, which is
stable since 1.54 and our MSRV is now 1.56.
This commit is precisely the result of the following Perl rune:
perl -i~ -0777 -pe 's{(^//!(?!.*\@\@).*\n)+}{#![doc = include_str!("../README.md")]\n}m' crates/*/src/lib.rs
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Update all lint blocks
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
From running add_warning, with manual picking of the right
hunks/lines.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This was the result of:
maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs
and then manually curating the results.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Don't use SystemTime::now()
Closes #306
See merge request tpo/core/arti!365
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This lint is IMO inherently ill-conceived.
I have looked for the reasons why this might be thought to be a good
idea and there were basically two (and they are sort of contradictory):
I. "Calling ‘.clone()` on an Rc, Arc, or Weak can obscure the fact
that only the pointer is being cloned, not the underlying data."
This is the wording from
https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/v0.0.212/#clone_on_ref_ptr
It is a bit terse; we are left to infer why it is a bad idea to
obscure this fact. It seems to me that if it is bad to obscure some
fact, that must be because the fact is a hazard. But why would it be
a hazard to not copy the underlying data ?
In other languages, faliing to copy the underlying data is a serious
correctness hazard. There is a whose class of bugs where things were
not copied, and then mutated and/or reused in multiple places in ways
that were not what the programmer intended. In my experience, this is
a very common bug when writing Python and Javascript. I'm told it's
common in golang too.
But in Rust this bug is much much harder to write. The data inside an
Arc is immutable. To have this bug you'd have use interior mutability
- ie mess around with Mutex or RefCell. That provides a good barrier
to these kind of accidents.
II. "The reason for writing Rc::clone and Arc::clone [is] to make it
clear that only the pointer is being cloned, as opposed to the
underlying data. The former is always fast, while the latter can
be very expensive depending on what is being cloned."
This is the reasoning found here
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2048
This is saying that *not* using Arc::clone is hazardous.
Specifically, that a deep clone is a performance hazard.
But for this argument, the lint is precisely backwards. It's linting
the "good" case and asking for it to be written in a more explicit
way; while the supposedly bad case can be written conveniently.
Also, many objects (in our codebase, and in all the libraries we use)
that are Clone are in fact simply handles. They contain Arc(s) (or
similar) and are cheap to clone. Indeed, that is the usual case.
It does not make sense to distinguish in the syntax we use to clone
such a handle, whether the handle is a transparent Arc, or an opaque
struct containing one or more other handles.
Forcing Arc::clone to be written as such makes for code churn when a
type is changed from Arc<Something> to Something: Clone, or vice
versa.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #338.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|