Conversation
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing |
|
r? @JohnTitor rustbot has assigned @JohnTitor. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
| !attr.is_doc_comment() | ||
| // FIXME(jdonszelmann) have a better way to handle ignored attrs | ||
| && !attr.name().is_some_and(|ident| is_ignored_attr(ident)) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an example of one of those "subtly wrong" places. #154924 will take care of it.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
We need to wait with merging this until we've made a decision on whether we revert the lint attribut port (see #152369), I'll review when the decision has been made |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #154924) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Part of #131229 (comment)
Removes
AttributeExt, turning some of its methods into inherent methods where necessary.I had to choose between
fn is_doc_comment(&self) -> Option<Span>(trait) andfn is_doc_comment(&self) -> bool(inherent). I chose the latter because nothing is actually using the span.This PR does not make further changes as
pathandnameare subtly wrong and IMO should be fixed in standalone prs.