Add lint to suggest into() to construct reference-counted slice#2807
Add lint to suggest into() to construct reference-counted slice#2807rudyardrichter wants to merge 6 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
into() to construct reference-counted slice#2807Conversation
fd28667 to
ebfda29
Compare
|
Hi @oli-obk, here's what I started on for #2623. A few questions—how can I print debug information from running the lint? I tried something like this: cx.sess().span_note(expr.span, &format!("{:?}", ty))(from that article linked in What else do I need to change to get the lint running? |
|
The dogfood test complains about |
|
Sorry, I had committed it after removing some things for debugging. After 5958ddf the tests are passing but I don't think it runs the lint (I don't see anything happen even if I put a |
|
You need to add the lint to lib.rs. Also try running the utils/update_lints.py script first |
|
Yeah I just ran |
|
Ah, sorry, didn't see that running the script didn't add a |
5958ddf to
ff3228c
Compare
…o use_shared_from_slice
|
@oli-obk would you mind checking up on the progress here? I fixed up I noticed |
oli-obk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a feeling we're overlooking some cases here. Can you run your lint on a bunch of crates like cargo, rls or other big crates to see what kind of situations trigger your lints there?
| if let Some(arg) = args.get(0); | ||
|
|
||
| then { | ||
| if arg_is_vec { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this is a little dangerous, because the message might appear even if the user has no way to change the type. For Rc<Vec<[T]>> this is is kinda fine, because the suggestion will still work, but for Rc<String> I'm not sure if .as_str().into() is equivalent.
|
ping @rudyardrichter, do you still want to finish this up? |
|
Ping @rudyardrichter. I'm going over old PRs, that were abandoned by us reviewers (sorry for that!) or by the authors. Are you still interested in completing this? |
|
Hey @flip1995, probably best to let someone else take this. Apologies. |
|
No worries. Sorry for not giving you an earlier review. Thanks for your contribution! |
To resolve #2623.