Initial commit adding coding guidelines using sphinx-needs #226
Conversation
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/prototype-coding-guidelines-sphinx-needs
branch
from
8839f4d to
4830618
Compare
|
Thanks, @PLeVasseur... I've been meaning to dive into |
| Types and Traits | ||
| ================ | ||
|
|
||
| .. guideline:: Avoid Implicit Integer Wrapping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid doesn't sound like a requirement but the MUST below does. Follow something like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 to define the meaning of terms you use in the coding standard. Also follow the update from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8174
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There may also be some cases where you want modulo behavior so you need an exception to this rule and someway for the developer to indicate that they want modulo behavior to suppress a tool diagnostic.
|
|
||
| Code must not rely on Rust's implicit integer wrapping behavior that occurs in release builds. | ||
| Instead, explicitly handle potential overflows using the standard library's checked, | ||
| saturating, or wrapping operations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or ensure integer operations don't overflow. I don't know rust very well, but if you have (int i = 0, i < 10; i++) there is not need to explicitly handle overflows because none are possible.
| configurations. Explicit handling of potential overflow conditions improves code clarity, | ||
| maintainability, and reduces the risk of numerical errors in production. | ||
|
|
||
| .. bad_example:: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what bad_example expands to. Usually we would call this a "noncompliant example"
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/prototype-coding-guidelines-sphinx-needs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3a2040f to
0b256af
Compare
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/prototype-coding-guidelines-sphinx-needs
branch
from
0b256af to
ba215f0
Compare
…uild calls normal build correctly
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/prototype-coding-guidelines-sphinx-needs
branch
from
7d015b1 to
7019df4
Compare
|
Looks like I have some initial CI working for PRs and nightly. Soliciting any other feedback! By the way, thanks for the feedback @rcseacord. I am considering processing this in a follow-up PR and opening some issues to track your thoughts. |
|
Closing this one as we have spun off the safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines repo. |
4 participants
Hey folks 👋
Sorry for the massive PR. I plan to demo this and walk through it a bit in our next meeting to aid in getting proper context to review it.
Content
ToDo (@PLeVasseur) before merge
closes rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines#5