-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Cover Result
for question_mark
#7840
Conversation
r? @llogiq (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
2bb659f
to
3fc99b6
Compare
Looking good so far, just a small nit. |
Thank you! @bors r+ |
📌 Commit 083a454 has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
Hi I think this cause a few false positives in one of my projects (https://github.com/matthiaskrgr/cargo-cache) |
Whoops! 😓 #7859 should have been covered by rust-clippy/tests/ui/question_mark.rs Lines 144 to 149 in df65291
I'll be taking a look asap |
Fix `question_mark` FP on custom error type Closes #7859 #7840 aims to ignore `question_mark` when the return type is custom, which is [covered here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/blob/df65291edd6b89a241fed483ab165c32df468746/tests/ui/question_mark.rs#L144-L149). But this fails when there is a call in conditional predicate changelog: [`question_mark`] Fix false positive when there is call in conditional predicate
closes #7135
changelog: [
question_mark
] now coversResult