mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy
synced 2024-11-29 16:10:36 +00:00
b85f632607
Improved wording of or_fun_call lint
The current wording (e.g. ``use of `ok_or` followed by a function call``) is potentially confusing (at least it confused me) by suggesting that the function that follows the (in this case) `ok_or` is the problem and not the function that is an argument to it.
The code in my program that triggered the confusing message is the following:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or((
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
))
.html_context(stream, lang)?;
```
I thought that `html_context` was the problem and that I should do something along the following lines:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or_else(
(
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
),
html_context(stream, lang),
)?
```
This is of course wrong. My confusion was only cleared up through the help message indicating what I should try instead.
If someone has a better idea of a replacement wording (currently e.g. ``` function call inside of `ok_or` ```), I'm all ears.
changelog: none
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| test_utils | ||
| ui | ||
| ui-cargo | ||
| ui-internal | ||
| ui-toml | ||
| workspace_test | ||
| check-fmt.rs | ||
| clippy.toml | ||
| compile-test.rs | ||
| config-metadata.rs | ||
| dogfood.rs | ||
| headers.rs | ||
| integration.rs | ||
| lint_message_convention.rs | ||
| missing-test-files.rs | ||
| versioncheck.rs | ||
| workspace.rs | ||