Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove clippy exception for result_large_err #39

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2025
Merged

Remove clippy exception for result_large_err #39

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2025

Conversation

robin-nitrokey
Copy link
Member

The lint has been fixed by updating to ureq v3 so we no longer need an exception for it.

The lint has been fixed by updating to ureq v3 so we no longer need an
exception for it.
Copy link
Contributor

@sosthene-nitrokey sosthene-nitrokey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the future, it might make sense to not use #[allow(clippy::..] and instead use #[expect(clippy::...)] This would lead to a warning once the exception is not needed anymore

@@ -1 +1 @@
7.10.0-SNAPSHOT
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why this change?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I re-generated the client code to make sure that it was up to date. Not sure why it was 7.10 in the first place – even if rebuild the Docker container, update_openapi.sh uses 7.8 for me.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, it looks like you need to delete the openapitools/openapi-generator-cli base image in order to update the version. The current version would be 7.12. If we really want to approach this, we should change update_openapi.sh to update the image before generating the code. I suggest to do that in a separate PR.

@robin-nitrokey
Copy link
Member Author

I considered using expect but it would have bumped the MSRV for no good reason so I preferred this approach.

@robin-nitrokey robin-nitrokey merged commit 4f5201d into main Feb 18, 2025
8 checks passed
@robin-nitrokey robin-nitrokey deleted the lints branch February 18, 2025 15:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants