Skip to content

Tracking issue for RFC 2471, "Add lint warning for inner function marked as #[test]" #53911

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
2 tasks done
Centril opened this issue Sep 2, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

Tracking issue for RFC 2471, "Add lint warning for inner function marked as #[test]" #53911

Centril opened this issue Sep 2, 2018 · 2 comments
Assignees
@estebank
Labels
B-RFC-approved Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented. B-RFC-implemented Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor

Centril commented Sep 2, 2018 •
edited
Loading

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Add lint warning for inner function marked as #[test]" (rust-lang/rfcs#2471).

Steps:

  • Implement the RFC
  • Is there anything left to do?

Unresolved questions:

None
@Centril Centril added B-RFC-approved Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. B-RFC-implemented Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC labels Sep 2, 2018
@Centril Centril mentioned this issue Sep 2, 2018
Merged
@Centril
Copy link
Contributor Author

Centril commented Sep 14, 2018

@estebank is there anything left to do here or should we just close the issue?

@estebank
Copy link
Contributor

I believe we can close this as is. The linked PR was all needed to satisfy the RFC as it stands.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@estebank estebank

Labels
B-RFC-approved Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented. B-RFC-implemented Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@Centril @estebank