Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @llogiq (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
4ac089b to
cb29e3e
Compare
llogiq
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should look at more cases to ensure the false positive rate is low. The best way would presumably to check if the link text contains a valid path, but that may be too complex.
| bar() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn bar() {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to see a test case against false positives, e.g.
/// ['This week in Rust'](https://this-week-in-rust.org)
fn twir() {}
|
The particular case that motivated my example was looking for broken links, but I came across something with a broken link and quotes instead of backticks. Ideally the lint would catch these, but I guess that comes at the cost of false positives. Anecdotally, the use of Though if by "valid path" you mean a much simpler syntactic check (rather than checking if it points to an actual item), that sounds reasonable. i.e.:
Does that seem like a good way to go? |
|
That's exactly what I meant. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #8411) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
You will need to rebase on master. |
|
So this has waited long enough, I fixed the conflicts. Thanks for your patience. @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit c9be57d has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
I'm not sure about wording, it seems OK to me but happy to change if other people have better ideas
closes #8383
changelog: add [
doc_link_with_quotes] lint