Skip to content

Fix let_unit_value to lint when explicit unit type annotation is present #15975

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
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix let_unit_value to lint when explicit unit type annotation is present #15975

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+145 −28

Conversation

@matanshavit
Copy link

@matanshavit matanshavit commented Oct 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

changelog: [let_unit_value]: Now lints when explicit unit type annotation is present

fixes #15957

This PR fixes the let_unit_value lint to trigger even when an explicit () type annotation is present.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Oct 28, 2025
@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@matanshavit
Fix let_unit_value to lint when explicit unit type annotation is present
90a46e9 
Remove the early return that was skipping let bindings with explicit `()`
type annotations. The lint should trigger for redundant unit bindings
regardless of whether the type is explicitly annotated or inferred.
@matanshavit matanshavit force-pushed the fix-let-unit-value-explicit-type-15957 branch from b2809e4 to 90a46e9 Compare October 28, 2025 23:46
@matanshavit matanshavit mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Open
@blyxyas
Copy link
Member

blyxyas commented Oct 29, 2025 •
edited
Loading

(Triagebot was broken when this PR was created, a reviewer will be assigned when the issue is resolved)

@Urgau
Copy link
Member

Urgau commented Oct 29, 2025

r? clippy

samueltardieu
samueltardieu requested changes Oct 29, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu left a comment •
edited by rustbot
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Error markers should be identical to the other one used for testing this lint (let_unit_value, not ERROR). LLM generated probably?

Also please don't use lengthy LLM generated messages for the PR description, this is tedious to read and brings little value.

View changes since this review

@matanshavit
Copy link
Author

matanshavit commented Oct 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@samueltardieu

Error markers should be identical to the other one used for testing this lint (let_unit_value, not ERROR).

Fixed, that's for pointing that out.

please don't use lengthy LLM generated messages for the PR description, this is tedious to read and brings little value.

Understood. Sorry for the excess. I've shortened the description to just the changelog entry, reference to issue number, and short description.

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

Reviewers

@samueltardieu samueltardieu Awaiting requested review from samueltardieu

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@Jarcho Jarcho

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.

Lint for unused empty function value

6 participants

@matanshavit @rustbot @blyxyas @Urgau @samueltardieu @Jarcho