-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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.
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
use split_once for cleaner code #12615
Conversation
r? @epage (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
src/cargo/core/package_id_spec.rs
Outdated
(InternedString::new(path_name), Some(version)) | ||
} | ||
Some(fragment) => match fragment.split_once([':', '@']) { | ||
Some((name_or_version, part)) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: I believe name_or_version
is only name
here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
Feel free to |
let key_parts: Vec<_> = parts[0].splitn(2, ':').collect(); | ||
if parts.len() != 2 || key_parts.len() != 2 { | ||
bail!("--man expected value with form name:1=link"); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The old code errored on having too many =
or :
which the new code no longer does. Do we care?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't fully understand the format but we can keep the behavior the same for this refactor
let key_parts: Vec<_> = parts[0].splitn(2, ':').collect(); | ||
if parts.len() != 2 || key_parts.len() != 2 { | ||
bail!("--man expected value with form name:1=link"); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't fully understand the format but we can keep the behavior the same for this refactor
@bors r=epage |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Update cargo 21 commits in 96fe1c9e1aecd8f57063e3753969bb6418fd2fd5..d14c85f4e6e7671673b1a1bc87231ff7164761e1 2023-08-29 20:10:34 +0000 to 2023-09-05 22:28:10 +0000 - fix(resolver): Make resolver behavior independent of package order (rust-lang/cargo#12602) - cargo-credential: change serialization of cache expiration (rust-lang/cargo#12622) - Update registry-web-api.md yank/unyank comments (rust-lang/cargo#12619) - test: new options of debuginfo are no longer unstable (rust-lang/cargo#12618) - use split_once for cleaner code (rust-lang/cargo#12615) - stop using lazy_static (rust-lang/cargo#12616) - doc: adjust all doc headings one level up (rust-lang/cargo#12595) - chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#12609) - chore(deps): update rust crate cargo_metadata to 0.17.0 (rust-lang/cargo#12610) - Prepare for partial-version package specs (rust-lang/cargo#12591) - refactor: Use more serde_untagged (rust-lang/cargo#12581) - fix(cli): Help users know possible `--target` values (rust-lang/cargo#12607) - Tab completion for --target uses rustup but fallsback to rustc (rust-lang/cargo#12606) - Fewer temporary needless strings (rust-lang/cargo#12604) - fix(help): Provide better commands heading for styling (rust-lang/cargo#12593) - fix(update): Clarify meaning of --aggressive as --recursive (rust-lang/cargo#12544) - docs(changelog): Clarify language for Cargo.lock policy (rust-lang/cargo#12601) - fix typo: "default branch branch" -> "default branch" (rust-lang/cargo#12598) - fix: add error for unsupported credential provider version (rust-lang/cargo#12590) - fix(help): Explain --explain (rust-lang/cargo#12592) - fix(help): Remove redundant information from new/init (rust-lang/cargo#12594) r? ghost
What does this PR try to resolve?
Search the code base for
.splitn(2
and replace with.split_once
where it was clearer. I don't think any of them matter in practice.How should we test and review this PR?
This was an internal re-factor, and the tests still pass.
The two methods have subtly different semantics, so please review carefully.