3 ms·

Ehh, easy fix #[allow(clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)] let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;

by pwdisswordfishq 4mo ago

nesarkvechnep 4mo ago
Yeah, but you must know about them and the possible bug first in order to allow them...
- Joker_vD 4mo ago
  At which point you wouldn't have written this bug in the first place; or the warnings would trigger immediately, you'd change _ to an actual variable and then remove the warning pragmas because now you don't assign to _.
  - Twey 4mo ago
    `Poll` is marked `#[must_use]` so if you were assigning to something other than `_` you'd get a warning that you're ignoring the `Pending` path. The Clippy lint is only for `_` which Rust considers a use by default.
- Twey 4mo ago
  Hence ‘sadly’. IMNSHO both of these (or at least _untyped) should be enabled by default. Untyped `let _` is too big a footgun during refactorings.
- turboponyy 4mo ago
  Not really. If I'm using a linter, I go and configure the strictest possible ruleset, and only disable rules when justified on a need-by-need basis. It's just a matter of discipline.
lunar_mycroft 4mo ago
You can set the lints to `forbid` instead of `deny`, which means they can't be `allowed` like that.
Twey 4mo ago
I said ‘flagged’, not ‘fixed’ :) You can always write the wrong code if you want it enough. But hopefully a warning would have prompted someone to think harder about this flow.
- pwdisswordfishq 4mo ago
  But "let _ =" is already an explicit suppression of a must-use warning. Where does this arms race of "no, I really know what I am doing, compiler" versus "no, this really looks like a mistake, programmer" end?
  - Twey 4mo ago
    That's an excellent question I don't have an answer for in general :) IMHO the goal is usually for the compiler not to make these decisions but to provide the tools for the APIs people build to make them. That's kind of passing the buck, though. I guess in this case the core problem is that the API for these I/O calls has no representation in the type system for what's happening to the buffer. Proxying it as ‘the programmer must think about this code path’ is a reasonable best-effort but, evidently, sometimes inadequate.
  - tialaramex 4mo ago
    I do feel like Rust did enough to allow software engineers and their managers to make an explicit choice here.
    - Twey 4mo ago
      I think it definitely sits at a reasonable point in the tradeoff space here, but it's not the only reasonable point. And it's the nature of tradeoffs that some cases will slip through the cracks.
PoignardAzur 4mo ago
And this is why you should warn on `clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason` in your projects.
- pwdisswordfishq 4mo ago
  #[allow(clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason,clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)] let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;
  - db48x 4mo ago
    If someone working for me wrote that I would fire them.

Ehh, easy fix #[allow(clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)] let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;

nesarkvechnep 4mo ago

Yeah, but you must know about them and the possible bug first in order to allow them...

Joker_vD 4mo ago
At which point you wouldn't have written this bug in the first place; or the warnings would trigger immediately, you'd change _ to an actual variable and then remove the warning pragmas because now you don't assign to _.
- Twey 4mo ago
  `Poll` is marked `#[must_use]` so if you were assigning to something other than `_` you'd get a warning that you're ignoring the `Pending` path. The Clippy lint is only for `_` which Rust considers a use by default.
Twey 4mo ago
Hence ‘sadly’. IMNSHO both of these (or at least _untyped) should be enabled by default. Untyped `let _` is too big a footgun during refactorings.
turboponyy 4mo ago
Not really. If I'm using a linter, I go and configure the strictest possible ruleset, and only disable rules when justified on a need-by-need basis. It's just a matter of discipline.

lunar_mycroft 4mo ago

You can set the lints to `forbid` instead of `deny`, which means they can't be `allowed` like that.

Twey 4mo ago

I said ‘flagged’, not ‘fixed’ :) You can always write the wrong code if you want it enough. But hopefully a warning would have prompted someone to think harder about this flow.

pwdisswordfishq 4mo ago
But "let _ =" is already an explicit suppression of a must-use warning. Where does this arms race of "no, I really know what I am doing, compiler" versus "no, this really looks like a mistake, programmer" end?
- Twey 4mo ago
  That's an excellent question I don't have an answer for in general :) IMHO the goal is usually for the compiler not to make these decisions but to provide the tools for the APIs people build to make them. That's kind of passing the buck, though. I guess in this case the core problem is that the API for these I/O calls has no representation in the type system for what's happening to the buffer. Proxying it as ‘the programmer must think about this code path’ is a reasonable best-effort but, evidently, sometimes inadequate.
- tialaramex 4mo ago
  I do feel like Rust did enough to allow software engineers and their managers to make an explicit choice here.
  - Twey 4mo ago
    I think it definitely sits at a reasonable point in the tradeoff space here, but it's not the only reasonable point. And it's the nature of tradeoffs that some cases will slip through the cracks.

PoignardAzur 4mo ago

And this is why you should warn on `clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason` in your projects.

pwdisswordfishq 4mo ago
#[allow(clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason,clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)] let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;
- db48x 4mo ago
  If someone working for me wrote that I would fire them.