-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Lintcheck: Add URL to lint emission place in diff #13104
Lintcheck: Add URL to lint emission place in diff #13104
Conversation
a0ba585
to
a941454
Compare
It looks like the cargo link is sadly still incorrect 🤔 |
39281e4
to
0592dc1
Compare
The cargo links work now 🎉 Some links are currently not 100% correct as the versions we use for lintcheck are so old that they used a previous version of docs.rs link structure. I considered fixing this, but decided to hold of on it, until I update our default and CI test set (Which is on my todo list for next week) |
A few times I've forgotten if I'm reading the |
0592dc1
to
9847a7b
Compare
I like the idea. A simple
Edit: 🖼️ rendered 🖼️ |
file_name: String, | ||
byte_pos: (u32, u32), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could remove these now since the file_link
would cover it well enough
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The byte position is still used in the key()
function on line 19. We could replace it with the link, but I think having it separately would make more sense. While all links currently contain line labels, there is no guarantee that they will for manually configured lints. And links also don't contain the column, which is included in this field.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since they're displayed under [lint] at [url]
sections I think those making up the key makes sense. Removing information from the key has a benefit - it would mean tweaks to a span's start column/end line/end column show as a change rather than
Added `x` at y#5
...
Removed `x` at y#5
I didn't think about links without line numbers, if that happened more things would appear as changes than necessary but reasonably I don't think we'll have such links
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not critical though, either way it's ready for r+ after ditching the test commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removing information from the key has a benefit - it would mean tweaks to a span's start column/end line/end column show as a change rather than
The tweaked span would still result in a added
and removed
message, since the lint message displays the span and is also used as part of the span. I think here it's safer to display them separately and leave it to the reviewer to merge them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The message isn't part of the key
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I mixed it up with the lint name 😅 But I'd still prefer it to be separate. Some lints might also be emitted multiple times per line.
9847a7b
to
c2d8cab
Compare
I removed the dummy commit and renamed a variable to avoid |
c2d8cab
to
0e3d197
Compare
🐰 @bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
This PR adds links to the emission code in our lintcheck CI. When reviewing changes, I would like to be able to see the bigger context, which isn't always included in the lint message. This PR adds a nice link to the lintcheck diff that allows for simple investigation of the code in question.
At first, I wanted to simply use the doc.rs links and call it a day, but then I figured out that some crates might have their source files remapped. Cargo was the crate that made me notice this. As a response, I made the link configurable. (See rust-lang/docs.rs#2551 for a detailed explanation and possible solution to remove this workaround in the future.)
It's probably easiest to review the individual commits. The last one is just a dummy to showcase the change.
🖼️ rendered 🖼️
r? @Alexendoo
changelog: none
That's it, I hope that everyone who's reading this has a beautiful day :D