You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I personally like the brevity of ? in tests, which requires the test function to return a Result<...>.
At the same time, I also find the pretty_assertions crate particularly useful when verifying equality, despite them internally using panics.
It would be nice to complement/enhance the panic_in_result_fn lint by allowing for certain macros. For example in my case, specifically whitelisting the pretty_assertions::assert_* macros.
Description
I personally like the brevity of
?
in tests, which requires the test function to return aResult<...>
.At the same time, I also find the
pretty_assertions
crate particularly useful when verifying equality, despite them internally using panics.It would be nice to complement/enhance the
panic_in_result_fn
lint by allowing for certain macros. For example in my case, specifically whitelisting thepretty_assertions::assert_*
macros.What are people's views on this?
Related
assert!
assert_eq!
assert_ne!
and variants in ResultFN #6082Version
Additional Labels
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: