Don't lint let_unit_value when () is explicit#10844
Conversation
|
r? @llogiq (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
llogiq
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for taking this on, also I much like the additions to the tests. One thing that befuddled me is why did you regress from a let chain to an if_chain! macro invocation?
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11239) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
r=me with rebase/squash |
|
Any chance this can be rebased and merged? |
|
I have tried locally, merging |
a3baf20 to
81f16d8
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-action_dev_test |
81f16d8 to
fd9d330
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
since these are explicitly written (and not the result of a function call or anything else), they should be allowed, as they are both useful in some cases described in #9048
Fixes #9048
changelog: [
let_unit_value]: Don't lint when()is explicit