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

Fixes inspired by Clippy #668

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 12, 2025
Merged

Conversation

fitzthum
Copy link
Member

I went a little further on the middle one and removed the ExtractorsImpl trait.

@fitzthum fitzthum requested a review from a team as a code owner January 17, 2025 20:03
@mythi mythi mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2025
@mythi
Copy link
Contributor

mythi commented Feb 10, 2025

rebase needed here

We don't need this return. Thank you clippy.

Signed-off-by: Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <[email protected]>
@fitzthum
Copy link
Member Author

rebase needed here

Rebased. TDX change no longer needed.

Copy link
Contributor

@mythi mythi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM but looks like some minor syntax error sneaked in.

It's hard to imagine having multiple implementations of Extractors (the
thing that manages all the individual extractors). So let's simplify
things by getting rid of the ExtractorsImpl trait.

Also rewrite some of the comments and remove a newline that Clippy was
complaining about.

Signed-off-by: Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <[email protected]>
@mythi mythi merged commit 1fdd67d into confidential-containers:main Feb 12, 2025
21 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants