tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix#143493
Merged
bors merged 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom Jul 6, 2025
Merged
tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix#143493bors merged 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
previous behavior was inconsistent with existing extra checks.
rustbot
added
A-tidy
Collaborator
|
There are changes to the cc @jieyouxu |
Kobzol
reviewed
Jul 5, 2025
Member
Kobzol
left a comment
Kobzol
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice cleanup, thanks! Yes, please include a Warning change tracker entry, even though I suspect not many people use this. You can r=me after that (and green CI).
Contributor
|
Why Ahh, my bad, found bless in py:fmt and cpp:fmt. |
Kobzol
reviewed
Jul 5, 2025
Contributor
|
And need to regenerate completions after #143452. |
Member
|
There should be no need for that, as the documentation of Clap flags (and thus CLI help output) wasn't changed. |
Contributor
Author
|
@Kobzol done, want me to squash the last 2 together? Update: squashed it anyways, it makes more sense that way I think. |
lolbinarycat
force-pushed
the
tidy-spellcheck-bless
branch
from
1ab0518 to
9f78173
Compare
Member
|
Thanks! You can r=me once CI is green. |
Contributor
Author
|
@Kobzol i don't have bors perms yet, do you want to delegate the pr? |
Member
|
Ooh, I see, sorry! Here you go :) @bors delegate+ |
Collaborator
|
✌️ @lolbinarycat, you can now approve this pull request! If @Kobzol told you to " |
Contributor
Author
Collaborator
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #143416 (mbe: Defer checks for `compile_error!` until reporting an unused macro rule) - #143470 (std: sys: net: uefi: tcp4: Implement read) - #143477 (use `is_multiple_of` and `div_ceil`) - #143484 (distinguish the duplicate item of rpitit) - #143493 (tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix) - #143504 (compiletest: print slightly more information on fs::write failure) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2025
Rollup merge of #143493 - lolbinarycat:tidy-spellcheck-bless, r=Kobzol tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix previous behavior was inconsistent with existing extra checks. unsure if this needs a change tracker entry or a warning for people who try to use the old behavior. unsure if we should call this `spellcheck:lint` for consistency. making this consistent is a prerequisite for #143398 cc `@nnethercote` r? `@Kobzol`
Kobzol
pushed a commit
to Kobzol/portable-simd
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2026
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#143416 (mbe: Defer checks for `compile_error!` until reporting an unused macro rule) - rust-lang/rust#143470 (std: sys: net: uefi: tcp4: Implement read) - rust-lang/rust#143477 (use `is_multiple_of` and `div_ceil`) - rust-lang/rust#143484 (distinguish the duplicate item of rpitit) - rust-lang/rust#143493 (tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix) - rust-lang/rust#143504 (compiletest: print slightly more information on fs::write failure) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Kobzol
pushed a commit
to Kobzol/portable-simd
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2026
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#143416 (mbe: Defer checks for `compile_error!` until reporting an unused macro rule) - rust-lang/rust#143470 (std: sys: net: uefi: tcp4: Implement read) - rust-lang/rust#143477 (use `is_multiple_of` and `div_ceil`) - rust-lang/rust#143484 (distinguish the duplicate item of rpitit) - rust-lang/rust#143493 (tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix) - rust-lang/rust#143504 (compiletest: print slightly more information on fs::write failure) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
previous behavior was inconsistent with existing extra checks.
unsure if this needs a change tracker entry or a warning for people who try to use the old behavior.
unsure if we should call this
spellcheck:lintfor consistency.making this consistent is a prerequisite for #143398
cc @nnethercote
r? @Kobzol