Remove all uses of `unwrap` from our docs about diesel

[masklinn]

How do you figure that'd work for examples using main e.g. second example of the readme?

[defyrlt]

I think that .unwrap() is a great thing for docs/examples. You don't have to teach your users how to handle error cases - there's a chapter in the Book for it.

[sgrif]

The example using main is probably fine. I think many of our examples could change to use try!, or change their assertion to compare against Ok though

[sgrif]

I don't think we need to teach users how to handle error cases, but if we can avoid unwrap without actually making the example less clear, I'd like to.

[mfpiccolo]

If this repo is going to be a popular place for people who newer to Rust (which I think it will be) it is important to show how to do it the right way. Or don't show it at all.

Perhaps saving the Result as a variable and then a comment underneath about dealing with the result?

[hiimtaylorjones]

Shouldn't this be closed because of the above PR? If not, I'm more than willing to finish what work wasn't covered by #45!

[sgrif]

I think that there are still a few places left but I can't confirm at the moment. Feel free to let me know if that's the case

[hiimtaylorjones]

Ah, I see what you're talking about.

Upon doing a global project search for /// assert_eq!(, I've found that cases that use .unwrap() in the assert are all using Ok([statement]) now. Is this the desired beahvior?

Anyways, I'm recommending closing this issue and my Issue #34 PR if everything is as it should be. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[sgrif]

Thanks!

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:31 AM Taylor Jones [email protected]
wrote:

Ah, I see what you're talking about.

Upon doing a global project search for /// assert_eq!(, I've found that
cases that use .unwrap() in the assert are all using Ok([statement]) now.
Is this the desired beahvior?

Anyways, I'm closing this PR and recommending that #34
#34 be closed if everything
is as it should be. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#34 (comment)