Skip to content

Rename inconsistent_struct_constructor configuration; don't suggest deprecated configurations #14280

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025
Merged

Rename inconsistent_struct_constructor configuration; don't suggest deprecated configurations #14280

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025

Conversation

smoelius
Copy link
Contributor

This PR does two things:

  • It renames inconsistent_struct_constructor's configuration from lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers to check-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers. (I should have suggested check-... in #13737.)
  • It causes Clippy to no longer suggest deprecated configurations. (Previously, Clippy would suggest cyclomatic-complexity-threshold, for example.)

r? @y21

changelog: Rename lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers to check-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers
changelog: No longer suggest deprecated configurations

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Feb 23, 2025
@smoelius smoelius force-pushed the lint-to-check branch 2 times, most recently from 0c3200f to 79e5125 Compare March 4, 2025 10:40
y21
y21 approved these changes Mar 8, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@y21 y21 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, thanks!

@y21 y21 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 8, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Mar 8, 2025
@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

smoelius commented Mar 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

I can reproduce the failure locally. I will look into fixing it.

EDIT: 🤞

EDIT 2: 😀

@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

@y21 I just rebased this again. Do you think you could please try merging again?

@y21 y21 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 24, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Mar 24, 2025
@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, my rebase left off one commit. Could you please try merging one more time?

@y21 y21 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 25, 2025
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit d88818d Mar 25, 2025
11 checks passed
@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks!

@smoelius smoelius deleted the lint-to-check branch March 25, 2025 12:21
@utkarshgupta137
Copy link

Seems like this didn't make it into 1.86.0 release, but the changelog suggests the new name...

@y21
Copy link
Member

y21 commented Apr 4, 2025

Seems like this didn't make it into 1.86.0 release, but the changelog suggests the new name...

The changelog uses the old name lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers, which is correct for 1.86.0, as far as I can tell?

rust-clippy/CHANGELOG.md

Line 45 in a5a033d

* Add `lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers` configuration option to [`inconsistent_struct_constructor`]

@utkarshgupta137
Copy link

Seems like this didn't make it into 1.86.0 release, but the changelog suggests the new name...

The changelog uses the old name lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers, which is correct for 1.86.0, as far as I can tell?

rust-clippy/CHANGELOG.md

Line 45 in a5a033d

* Add `lint-inconsistent-struct-field-initializers` configuration option to [`inconsistent_struct_constructor`]

Sorry, my bad. I was looking at the clippy documentation (master), which mentioned this new name. No worries here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@y21 y21 y21 approved these changes

Assignees

@y21 y21

Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@smoelius @utkarshgupta137 @y21 @rustbot