use split_once for cleaner code#12615
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Sep 3, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
r? @epage (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
A-build-execution
epage
reviewed
Sep 1, 2023
src/cargo/core/package_id_spec.rs
Outdated
| (InternedString::new(path_name), Some(version)) | ||
| } | ||
| Some(fragment) => match fragment.split_once([':', '@']) { | ||
| Some((name_or_version, part)) => { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I believe name_or_version is only name here
epage
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2023
Contributor
|
Feel free to |
Eh2406
commented
Sep 1, 2023
| let key_parts: Vec<_> = parts[0].splitn(2, ':').collect(); | ||
| if parts.len() != 2 || key_parts.len() != 2 { | ||
| bail!("--man expected value with form name:1=link"); | ||
| } |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The old code errored on having too many = or : which the new code no longer does. Do we care?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't fully understand the format but we can keep the behavior the same for this refactor
weihanglo
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2023
| let key_parts: Vec<_> = parts[0].splitn(2, ':').collect(); | ||
| if parts.len() != 2 || key_parts.len() != 2 { | ||
| bail!("--man expected value with form name:1=link"); | ||
| } |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't fully understand the format but we can keep the behavior the same for this refactor
Member
|
@bors r=epage |
Contributor
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Contributor
Contributor
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This was referenced Sep 3, 2023
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2023
Update cargo 21 commits in 96fe1c9e1aecd8f57063e3753969bb6418fd2fd5..d14c85f4e6e7671673b1a1bc87231ff7164761e1 2023-08-29 20:10:34 +0000 to 2023-09-05 22:28:10 +0000 - fix(resolver): Make resolver behavior independent of package order (rust-lang/cargo#12602) - cargo-credential: change serialization of cache expiration (rust-lang/cargo#12622) - Update registry-web-api.md yank/unyank comments (rust-lang/cargo#12619) - test: new options of debuginfo are no longer unstable (rust-lang/cargo#12618) - use split_once for cleaner code (rust-lang/cargo#12615) - stop using lazy_static (rust-lang/cargo#12616) - doc: adjust all doc headings one level up (rust-lang/cargo#12595) - chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#12609) - chore(deps): update rust crate cargo_metadata to 0.17.0 (rust-lang/cargo#12610) - Prepare for partial-version package specs (rust-lang/cargo#12591) - refactor: Use more serde_untagged (rust-lang/cargo#12581) - fix(cli): Help users know possible `--target` values (rust-lang/cargo#12607) - Tab completion for --target uses rustup but fallsback to rustc (rust-lang/cargo#12606) - Fewer temporary needless strings (rust-lang/cargo#12604) - fix(help): Provide better commands heading for styling (rust-lang/cargo#12593) - fix(update): Clarify meaning of --aggressive as --recursive (rust-lang/cargo#12544) - docs(changelog): Clarify language for Cargo.lock policy (rust-lang/cargo#12601) - fix typo: "default branch branch" -> "default branch" (rust-lang/cargo#12598) - fix: add error for unsupported credential provider version (rust-lang/cargo#12590) - fix(help): Explain --explain (rust-lang/cargo#12592) - fix(help): Remove redundant information from new/init (rust-lang/cargo#12594) r? ghost
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
Search the code base for
.splitn(2and replace with.split_oncewhere it was clearer. I don't think any of them matter in practice.How should we test and review this PR?
This was an internal re-factor, and the tests still pass.
The two methods have subtly different semantics, so please review carefully.