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

To add a SAFETY comment to the now function #811

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 8, 2024

Conversation

ZhangHanDong
Copy link
Contributor

The unsafe block should include necessary comments to complete the safety abstraction.

In the implementation of the now function, necessary SAFETY comments should be added to explain its safety, with particular emphasis on the fact that libc::clock_gettime initializes the spec.

The `unsafe` block should include necessary comments to complete the safety abstraction.

In the implementation of the `now` function, necessary `SAFETY` comments should be added to explain its safety, with particular emphasis on the fact that `libc::clock_gettime` initializes the `spec`.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 28, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7f82d3a) 57.32% compared to head (ec6d41a) 57.31%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #811      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.32%   57.31%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          74       74              
  Lines       10505    10505              
==========================================
- Hits         6022     6021       -1     
- Misses       4483     4484       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@squell squell requested a review from rnijveld January 5, 2024 09:22
@squell
Copy link
Member

squell commented Jan 5, 2024

Thanks for the contribution! A review will be upcoming :)

@squell squell added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 5, 2024
@squell squell removed the request for review from rnijveld January 5, 2024 09:55
@squell squell added the minor minor issue, PR without an issue label Jan 5, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jan 5, 2024
@squell
Copy link
Member

squell commented Jan 8, 2024

Note: there are some CI issues due to an update for clippy; fixing those, I expect this to be mergeable then.

@squell squell added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 8, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jan 8, 2024
@squell squell added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 8, 2024
Merged via the queue into trifectatechfoundation:main with commit 2fa9234 Jan 8, 2024
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
minor minor issue, PR without an issue
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants