From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE531FF136 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:16:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 09EA4342AA; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:16:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <12340301-c3d4-4736-b79c-799dc83b1916@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:15:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH yew-comp 00/15] clippy clean up proxmox-yew-comp To: Shannon Sterz References: <20260306112148.208189-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <591b094a-7451-48ec-9683-d679d46b1705@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773062124593 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.038 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: ROOMGMFZYRWJHRN6FYJBKPBJQ2ELGNAO X-Message-ID-Hash: ROOMGMFZYRWJHRN6FYJBKPBJQ2ELGNAO X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: yew-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Yew framework devel list at Proxmox List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 3/9/26 2:12 PM, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Mon Mar 9, 2026 at 1:54 PM CET, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> most of them look fine to me IMO, >> but I'm thinking maybe we should have (for the gui at least?) a custom >> clippy config that removes some default lints, e.g. the >> large_enum_variant and too_many_arguments lint >> don' gain us much most of the time >> >> (Msg enums are only sent every once in a while, >> so performance impact is negligible here; >> long argument lists only get ignored most of the time anyway) >> >> also the commit: >> fix various minor clippy lints has some in the list >> that are not actually part of the commit? >> (like again the 'too_many_arguments' one) > > ah sorry something must have slipped into that list, i'll go over it > again. > >> so before i go and apply this (at least partially) >> we might want to look over the lints again to see >> which one we can/should ignore here? > > that's fair i also don't think we gain much with the examples you > mentioned. we could add a `lints` section to our cargo toml, something > like this to start with possibly: > > ```toml > [lints.clippy] > too_many_arguments = "allow" > enum_variant_names = "allow" > large_enum_variant = "allow" > ``` > > what do you think? > > -->8 snip 8<-- yeah i think allowing these for starters seems fine. i didn't look through the list in detail, but we could add them as we encounter them. thanks!