is there any opinion on

clippy::default_trait_access

which flags code that uses

Default::default()

? I am using

Default::default

via the

..Default::default()

syntax to fill in default values in some Prost-generated protobuf structs. I could repeat the struct name itself to comply with the lint but the

..Default::default()

syntax seems fine to me.

Yeah,

Default::default()

seems fairly unambiguous in that instance… Can you file a bug against https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy for it?

will do. in the meantime, do I just comply with the lint? seems annoying if I have to put

#![allow(clippy::default_trait_access)]

at the top of every file.

How many uses are we realistically talking here?

23

Sigh, yeah, sorry!

(and you should see the Tonic refactor in about an hour … 🙂 )

Hurrah! Looking forward to it, expecting it to be so much cleaner and probably shave 30% off of the build time? Maybe 60% off a clean build on a new machine?

haven’t benchmarked it yet, and as you’ll see in the PR to come, I may need to Box some async futures because I had to set RUST_MIN_STACK to get tests to run without a stack overflow, so still some work to do

Nothing wrong with some Boxing here and there!

so, re:

Default::default

, : that’s as opposed to

ActualStruct::default

, i think… right?

and the PR for Tonic: https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/11307