-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 619
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
chore: Use inheritance to reduce copy-paste in Cargo.toml
s
#7687
chore: Use inheritance to reduce copy-paste in Cargo.toml
s
#7687
Conversation
3f8aea0
to
636148d
Compare
} | ||
None => { | ||
// we can skip, since we have has_rust_version check | ||
continue; |
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.
Re-reading this bit of code, I think we can just remove the whole function? We check that rust-version is specified at all in has_rust_version
, and it cant' actually be greated that what we have in rust-toolcahin, as that would break the build.
I suggest sending a follow-up just removing this logic (but maybe I am missing something obvious here?)
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.
For future PRs which combine "do the same trivail change all over the place" with "do small non-trivial change in one place", consider more explicitly calling this structure out, so that the interesting bit isn't missed. (eg, by adding a comment yourself on GitHub, or setting-up history for per-commit review.)
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.
Re-reading this bit of code, I think we can just remove the whole function? We check that rust-version is specified at all in has_rust_version, and it cant' actually be greated that what we have in rust-toolcahin, as that would break the build.
Hmm... that might indeed be the case. I'll investigate a bit. I was actually thinking of doing something simpler and combining has_rust_version
and has_debuggable_rust_version
. They seem to be performing similar checks.
For future PRs which combine "do the same trivail change all over the place" with "do small non-trivial change in one place", consider more explicitly calling this structure out, so that the interesting bit isn't missed. (eg, by adding a comment yourself on GitHub, or setting-up history for per-commit review.)
Thanks for the feedback. I will keep it in mind in future.
See #7674 for more details.