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 9A4CF1FF136 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:13:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA5D133FE3; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:13:34 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:13:00 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH yew-comp 00/15] clippy clean up proxmox-yew-comp To: "Dominik Csapak" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260306112148.208189-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <591b094a-7451-48ec-9683-d679d46b1705@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <591b094a-7451-48ec-9683-d679d46b1705@proxmox.com> From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773061948111 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.107 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: 3BK4ATDG5DJANZVVR2Y6PHCZFNJP2BGU X-Message-ID-Hash: 3BK4ATDG5DJANZVVR2Y6PHCZFNJP2BGU X-MailFrom: s.sterz@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 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 =3D "allow" enum_variant_names =3D "allow" large_enum_variant =3D "allow" ``` what do you think? -->8 snip 8<--