codewide: appease clippy again

scylladb / scylla-rust-driver

Async CQL driver for Rust, optimized for ScyllaDB!

Apache License 2.0

582 stars 104 forks source link

codewide: appease clippy again #1046

Closed wprzytula closed 3 months ago

wprzytula commented 3 months ago

This time clippy got angry about bad indentation in docstrings' lists.

Pre-review checklist

[x] I have split my patch into logically separate commits.
[x] All commit messages clearly explain what they change and why.
~~[ ] I added relevant tests for new features and bug fixes.~~
[ ] All commits compile, pass static checks and pass test.
[x] PR description sums up the changes and reasons why they should be introduced.
~~[ ] I have provided docstrings for the public items that I want to introduce.~~
~~[ ] I have adjusted the documentation in ./docs/source/.~~
~~[ ] I added appropriate Fixes: annotations to PR description.~~

Lorak-mmk commented 3 months ago

I approved the current changes, but they seem to not be enough to make clippy happy.

wprzytula commented 3 months ago

I approved the current changes, but they seem to not be enough to make clippy happy.

The remaining errors come not from clippy, but from rustc itself. A new version of rustc denied support for arbitrary cfg parameters. Those must be declared, as the error message says.

I would merge this as-is, solving the cfg issue in another PR, because it has nothing to do with clippy.

Lorak-mmk commented 3 months ago

I approved the current changes, but they seem to not be enough to make clippy happy.

The remaining errors come not from clippy, but from rustc itself. A new version of rustc denied support for arbitrary cfg parameters. Those must be declared, as the error message says.

I would merge this as-is, solving the cfg issue in another PR, because it has nothing to do with clippy.

Is there a reason for doing this in another PR? I'm reluctant to merge without passing CI. Can't this PR fix both issues?

wprzytula commented 3 months ago

Is there a reason for doing this in another PR?

Just naming, and keeping PRs doing one thing, not multiple.

I'm reluctant to merge without passing CI.

I see no point in being that religious about passing CI. If the only changes the PR introduces are related to indentation in docstrings, nothing can get worse because of the PR.

Can't this PR fix both issues?

Well, it can. Any PR can fix any number of issues.