doc: Remove confusing assert linter #28304
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. |
maflcko
force-pushed
the
2308-doc-assert-
branch
from
89936a3 to
fa6e6a3
Compare
|
Concept ACK. |
theStack
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2023
|
If we ever wanted to reintroduce something similar in future, using https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/assert-side-effect.html#bugprone-assert-side-effect is also likely more appropriate. |
Frank-GER
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2023
fa6e6a3 doc: Remove confusing assert linter (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The `assert()` documentation and linter are redundant and confusing: * The source code already refuses to compile with `assert()` disabled. * They violate the assumptions about `Assert()`, which *requires* side effects. * The existing linter doesn't enforce the guideline, only checking for `++` and `--` side effects. Fix all issues by removing the docs and the linter. See also bitcoin#26684 (comment) Going forward everyone is free to use whatever code in this regard they think is the easiest to read. Also, everyone is still free to share style-nits, if they think it is a good use of their time and of the pull request author. Finally, the author is still free to dismiss or ignore this style-nit, or any other style-nit. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK fa6e6a3, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK. theStack: ACK fa6e6a3 Tree-SHA512: 686738d71e1316cc95e5d3f71869b55a02bfb137c795cc0875057f4410e564bc8eff03c985a2087b007fb08fc84551c7da1e8b30c7a9c3f2b14e5e44a5970236
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2024
fa6e6a3 doc: Remove confusing assert linter (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The `assert()` documentation and linter are redundant and confusing: * The source code already refuses to compile with `assert()` disabled. * They violate the assumptions about `Assert()`, which *requires* side effects. * The existing linter doesn't enforce the guideline, only checking for `++` and `--` side effects. Fix all issues by removing the docs and the linter. See also bitcoin#26684 (comment) Going forward everyone is free to use whatever code in this regard they think is the easiest to read. Also, everyone is still free to share style-nits, if they think it is a good use of their time and of the pull request author. Finally, the author is still free to dismiss or ignore this style-nit, or any other style-nit. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK fa6e6a3, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK. theStack: ACK fa6e6a3 Tree-SHA512: 686738d71e1316cc95e5d3f71869b55a02bfb137c795cc0875057f4410e564bc8eff03c985a2087b007fb08fc84551c7da1e8b30c7a9c3f2b14e5e44a5970236
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2024
fa6e6a3 doc: Remove confusing assert linter (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The `assert()` documentation and linter are redundant and confusing: * The source code already refuses to compile with `assert()` disabled. * They violate the assumptions about `Assert()`, which *requires* side effects. * The existing linter doesn't enforce the guideline, only checking for `++` and `--` side effects. Fix all issues by removing the docs and the linter. See also bitcoin#26684 (comment) Going forward everyone is free to use whatever code in this regard they think is the easiest to read. Also, everyone is still free to share style-nits, if they think it is a good use of their time and of the pull request author. Finally, the author is still free to dismiss or ignore this style-nit, or any other style-nit. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK fa6e6a3, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK. theStack: ACK fa6e6a3 Tree-SHA512: 686738d71e1316cc95e5d3f71869b55a02bfb137c795cc0875057f4410e564bc8eff03c985a2087b007fb08fc84551c7da1e8b30c7a9c3f2b14e5e44a5970236
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2024
fa6e6a3 doc: Remove confusing assert linter (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: The `assert()` documentation and linter are redundant and confusing: * The source code already refuses to compile with `assert()` disabled. * They violate the assumptions about `Assert()`, which *requires* side effects. * The existing linter doesn't enforce the guideline, only checking for `++` and `--` side effects. Fix all issues by removing the docs and the linter. See also bitcoin#26684 (comment) Going forward everyone is free to use whatever code in this regard they think is the easiest to read. Also, everyone is still free to share style-nits, if they think it is a good use of their time and of the pull request author. Finally, the author is still free to dismiss or ignore this style-nit, or any other style-nit. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK fa6e6a3, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK. theStack: ACK fa6e6a3 Tree-SHA512: 686738d71e1316cc95e5d3f71869b55a02bfb137c795cc0875057f4410e564bc8eff03c985a2087b007fb08fc84551c7da1e8b30c7a9c3f2b14e5e44a5970236
PastaPastaPasta
added a commit
to dashpay/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2024
4101fea Merge bitcoin#28304: doc: Remove confusing assert linter (fanquake) c59cb15 Merge bitcoin#26282: wallet: have prune error take precedence over assumedvalid (fanquake) e2e8598 Merge bitcoin#23997: wallet: avoid rescans under assumed-valid blocks (Andrew Chow) b66eebe Merge bitcoin#25599: build: Check for std::atomic::exchange rather than std::atomic_exchange (fanquake) 1204dc0 Merge bitcoin#25486: test: fix failing test `interface_usdt_utxocache.py` (MacroFake) de17997 Merge bitcoin#24062: refactor: replace RecursiveMutex `m_most_recent_block_mutex` with Mutex (MacroFake) c91f010 Merge bitcoin#25092: doc: various developer notes updates (MacroFake) f39fcd1 Merge bitcoin#24988: lint: Mention NONFATAL_UNREACHABLE in lint-assertions.py (fanquake) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Batch of trivial backports ## What was done? See commits ## How Has This Been Tested? built locally; large combined merge passed tests locally ## Breaking Changes Should be none ## Checklist: - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 4101fea kwvg: utACK 4101fea Tree-SHA512: e948ff58b256f2ecb9611681f773570d233985f1470e3eaa6899f3b7e53701c06f56ed5b965d250e22764938b0afebc8d85f92879ba111a0e20127cd63e99809
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
assert()documentation and linter are redundant and confusing:assert()disabled.Assert(), which requires side effects.++and--side effects.Fix all issues by removing the docs and the linter. See also #26684 (comment)
Going forward everyone is free to use whatever code in this regard they think is the easiest to read. Also, everyone is still free to share style-nits, if they think it is a good use of their time and of the pull request author. Finally, the author is still free to dismiss or ignore this style-nit, or any other style-nit.