Deny todo!() in tidy

[jdonszelmann]

View all comments

Implements rust-lang/compiler-team#999

Part of #158173

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in rustc_ty_utils::consts.rs

cc @BoxyUwU

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs

cc @ZuseZ4

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_sanitizers

cc @rcvalle

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

This PR changes rustc_public

cc @oli-obk, @celinval, @ouz-a, @makai410

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rustbot]

r? @Kivooeo

rustbot has assigned @Kivooeo.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 73 candidates
• Random selection from 18 candidates

[rustbot]

This PR changes a file inside tests/crashes. If a crash was fixed, please move into the corresponding ui subdir and add 'Fixes #' to the PR description to autoclose the issue upon merge.

Some changes occurred in coverage tests.

cc @Zalathar

Some changes occurred in GUI tests.

cc @GuillaumeGomez

Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS.

cc @GuillaumeGomez, @lolbinarycat

The parser was modified, potentially altering the grammar of (stable) Rust
which would be a breaking change.

cc @fmease

This PR modifies tests/ui/issues/. If this PR is adding new tests to tests/ui/issues/,
please refrain from doing so, and instead add it to more descriptive subdirectories.

[WaffleLapkin]

I think this is a big improvement to how tidy works, but I do have some nits ^^'

View changes since this review

[WaffleLapkin]

Q: why is this needed?

[jdonszelmann]

so, the backticks lint is cursed. It considers whole comment blocks, and so concatenates comments on consecutive lines together. To answer the question of "why does odd_backticks need to be stored in comment_block": that's because when you do a line ignore for odd backticks, you want it to ignore odd backticks in the comment block starting on the next line (but possibly continuing for a few more lines).
Importantly, we shouldn't consider the starting // ignore-tidy as part of the comment block itself, otherwise the ignore "should have been one line higher" to be before the comment block starts, which it can't be because that argument repeats infinitely. This is prolly not the best solution but I'm so done with this rn, not sure I'm gonna fix it.

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[Kivooeo]

r? wafflelapkin

[rustbot]

wafflelapkin is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.