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

[Merged by Bors] - Document remaining members of bevy_utils #6897

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

james7132
Copy link
Member

Objective

Partially address #3492.

Solution

Document the remaining undocumented members of bevy_utils and set warn(missing_docs) on the crate level. Also enabled clippy::undocumented_unsafe_blocks as a warning on the crate to keep it in sync with bevy_ecs's warnings.

@james7132 james7132 added C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation A-Utils Utility functions and types labels Dec 9, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@tim-blackbird tim-blackbird left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just one little suggestion

crates/bevy_utils/src/futures.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: ira <JustTheCoolDude@gmail.com>
/// This method tests for `self` and `other` values to be equal.
///
/// Implementors should avoid returning `true` when the underlying types are
/// not the same.
Copy link
Contributor

@Carter0 Carter0 Dec 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit:

I think maybe you can be a little stronger with the language here. I don't see a reason at all for someone to return true if the underlying types are different. Though maybe I am missing a use case for something like that?

Maybe just replace avoid with not?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's an interesting one. Should 0u64.dyn_eq(0u32) return true? IMO it probably should.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this trait be manually implementable at all? Adding the bound DynEq: Eq should make any impls other than the blanket impl impossible.

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'd rather not introduce a breaking change in a docs PR, and even then it may not be desirable force it to only work with same type to same type equality.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thats a good point!

Copy link
Contributor

@Carter0 Carter0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Co-authored-by: Carter Weinberg <weinbergcarter@gmail.com>
@james7132 james7132 added the S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it label Dec 11, 2022
@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member

bors r+

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2022
# Objective
Partially address #3492. 

## Solution
Document the remaining undocumented members of `bevy_utils` and set `warn(missing_docs)` on the crate level. Also enabled `clippy::undocumented_unsafe_blocks` as a warning on the crate to keep it in sync with `bevy_ecs`'s warnings.
@bors bors bot changed the title Document remaining members of bevy_utils [Merged by Bors] - Document remaining members of bevy_utils Dec 11, 2022
@bors bors bot closed this Dec 11, 2022
@james7132 james7132 deleted the docs-bevy-utils branch December 12, 2022 03:59
@james7132 james7132 added this to the 0.10 milestone Dec 12, 2022
alradish pushed a commit to alradish/bevy that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2023
# Objective
Partially address bevyengine#3492. 

## Solution
Document the remaining undocumented members of `bevy_utils` and set `warn(missing_docs)` on the crate level. Also enabled `clippy::undocumented_unsafe_blocks` as a warning on the crate to keep it in sync with `bevy_ecs`'s warnings.
ItsDoot pushed a commit to ItsDoot/bevy that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2023
# Objective
Partially address bevyengine#3492. 

## Solution
Document the remaining undocumented members of `bevy_utils` and set `warn(missing_docs)` on the crate level. Also enabled `clippy::undocumented_unsafe_blocks` as a warning on the crate to keep it in sync with `bevy_ecs`'s warnings.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-Utils Utility functions and types C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants