r? @giraffate

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

Not sure how to test these use-cases so feel free to point any method or any related PR.

This is a reference to adding tests for the derived struct: #9043
We use compiletest for tests, so this documents is helpful: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/compiletest.html#building-auxiliary-crates

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Hey @c410-f3r, would you mind listing the lints that are affected by this change, for the changelog entry?

Not sure how to test these use-cases so feel free to point any method or any related PR.

This is a reference to adding tests for the derived struct: #9043 We use compiletest for tests, so this documents is helpful: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/compiletest.html#building-auxiliary-crates

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Thank you @giraffate

Hey @c410-f3r, would you mind listing the lints that are affected by this change, for the changelog entry? upside_down_face

This doesn't fix #9757 as quote doesn't use #[automatically_derived]. See @Alexendoo's comment on the issue for a likely fix.

Hey @c410-f3r, would you mind listing the lints that are affected by this change, for the changelog entry? upside_down_face

Thank you!

The latest upstream changes (presumably #10310) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Hey @c410-f3r would you be able to resolve the merge conflicts here? I'm happy to help in any way I can, but seems like you've got it covered.

This doesn't fix #9757 as quote doesn't use #[automatically_derived]. See @Alexendoo's comment on the issue for a likely fix.

Well, that is unfortunate...

Tests are now using statements that were manually created.

Hey @c410-f3r would you be able to resolve the merge conflicts here? I'm happy to help in any way I can, but seems like you've got it covered.

The actual fix needed more than a rebase but everything should probably be fine now

ping @giraffate

I can re-roll if you don't have the time to review

The latest upstream changes (presumably #10585) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Thanks for letting me know! I'll review this in this week.

Overall looks good. I made small comments.

question: For shadow_reuse, does this pull request just add a test?

changelog: FP: [integer_arithmetic], [arithmetic_side_effects], [shadow_reuse]: No longer lint inside proc macros

Yeah, just modified the changelog.

Initially I tried to solve #9757 but it turns out that such thing shouldn't happen because shadow_reuse already has a ident.span.from_expansion() guard. I will try to investigate in a following PR but would appreciate if the test can be kept for reference and enhanced robustness.

@bors r+

Thanks!

Commit d639062 has been approved by giraffate

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Testing commit d639062 with merge f1a552c...