Skip to content

[Coding Rule]: Do not read from uninitialized union fields #302

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
rcseacord wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[Coding Rule]: Do not read from uninitialized union fields #302

rcseacord wants to merge 11 commits into from
+392 −0

Conversation

@rcseacord
Copy link
Collaborator

@rcseacord rcseacord commented Dec 16, 2025

…alized bytes

gui_UnionPartialInit
Do not read from union fields that may contain uninitialized bytes

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Dec 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit a113eb6
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/scrc-coding-guidelines/deploys/6983a3fdc557e10008aba254
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-302--scrc-coding-guidelines.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@rcseacord rcseacord mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2025
Open
@rcseacord rcseacord self-assigned this Dec 16, 2025
@rcseacord rcseacord marked this pull request as draft December 16, 2025 14:19
@felix91gr
Copy link
Collaborator

felix91gr commented Dec 17, 2025

What's the difference in intent between this one and #300? This one has the title I would like #300 to have, but this one in particular I haven't read yet.

@rcseacord
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rcseacord commented Dec 17, 2025

What's the difference in intent between this one and #300? This one has the title I would like #300 to have, but this one in particular I haven't read yet.

@felix91gr the other one is for validity checks. this one is for reading uninitialized.

workingjubilee
workingjubilee reviewed Dec 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@workingjubilee workingjubilee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Noticed some sharp edges in the text.

rcseacord and others added 4 commits January 19, 2026 14:01
@rcseacord @PLeVasseur
[Coding Rule]: Do not read from union fields that may contain uniniti…
216103c 
…alized bytes

gui_UnionPartialInit 
Do not read from union fields that may contain uninitialized bytes
@rcseacord @PLeVasseur
Update index.rst
cf89c46 
add new guideline
@rcseacord @PLeVasseur
Update guidelines on struct field initialization
1f979fd 
Clarify rules for accessing struct fields and typed reads.
@PLeVasseur
fix(guidelines): normalize union partial init
1e988e7 
Standardize IDs and bibliography entries, update example miri/warning handling, and add missing tag definitions for unions/initialization.
@PLeVasseur PLeVasseur added coding guideline An issue related to a suggestion for a coding guideline chapter: types-and-traits labels Jan 19, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 19, 2026

👋 Hey @Dillonmcewan! You've been assigned to review this coding guideline PR.

Your Role as Reviewer

As outlined in our contribution guide, please:

  1. Begin your review within 14 days
  2. Provide constructive feedback on the guideline content, examples, and formatting
  3. Iterate with @rcseacord - they may update the PR based on your feedback
  4. When the guideline is ready, approve and add to the merge queue

Review Checklist

  • Guideline title is clear and follows conventions
  • Amplification section expands on the title appropriately
  • Rationale explains the "why" effectively
  • Non-compliant example(s) clearly show the problem
  • Compliant example(s) clearly show the solution
  • Code examples compile (check the CI results)
  • FLS paragraph ID is correct

Bot Commands

If you need to pass this review:

  • @guidelines-bot /pass [reason] - Pass just this PR to the next reviewer
  • @guidelines-bot /away YYYY-MM-DD [reason] - Step away from the queue until a date
  • @guidelines-bot /release [@username] [reason] - Release assignment (yours or someone else's with triage+ permission)

To assign someone else:

  • @guidelines-bot /r? @username - Assign a specific reviewer
  • @guidelines-bot /r? producers - Request the next reviewer from the queue

Other commands:

  • @guidelines-bot /claim - Claim this review for yourself
  • @guidelines-bot /label +label-name - Add a label
  • @guidelines-bot /label -label-name - Remove a label
  • @guidelines-bot /queue - Show reviewer queue
  • @guidelines-bot /commands - Show all available commands

rcseacord
rcseacord commented Jan 19, 2026
View reviewed changes
@rcseacord rcseacord marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2026 15:49
Dillonmcewan
Dillonmcewan reviewed Jan 20, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@Dillonmcewan Dillonmcewan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally looks great! Noticed one minor formatting issue and had one question about some non-compliant examples

Dillonmcewan
Dillonmcewan approved these changes Jan 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@Dillonmcewan Dillonmcewan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@rcseacord rcseacord requested a review from PLeVasseur January 21, 2026 20:26
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 2, 2026

⚠️ Review Reminder

Hey @Dillonmcewan, it's been more than 14 days since you were assigned to review this.

Please take one of the following actions:

  1. Begin your review - Post a comment with your feedback
  2. Pass the review - Use @guidelines-bot /pass [reason] to assign the next reviewer
  3. Step away temporarily - Use @guidelines-bot /away YYYY-MM-DD [reason] if you need time off

If no action is taken within 14 days, you may be transitioned from Producer to Observer status per our contribution guidelines.

Life happens! If you're dealing with something, just let us know.

Dillonmcewan
Dillonmcewan approved these changes Feb 3, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@Dillonmcewan Dillonmcewan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Didn't seem to register my last approval. Trying again

@Dillonmcewan
Copy link
Contributor

Dillonmcewan commented Feb 3, 2026

@PLeVasseur Is there something else I need to do to appease the bot? I approved the PR, but it still flagged me as having not reviewed

@PLeVasseur
Copy link
Collaborator

PLeVasseur commented Feb 3, 2026

@PLeVasseur Is there something else I need to do to appease the bot? I approved the PR, but it still flagged me as having not reviewed

Apologies @Dillonmcewan -- there's a bug / not well defined workflow here. Still working to resolve this. Will respond here once fixed. 🙃

@felix91gr
Copy link
Collaborator

felix91gr commented Feb 4, 2026

@Dillonmcewan to keep you in the loop: an issue to fix this has been opened #388 :)

@PLeVasseur
Copy link
Collaborator

PLeVasseur commented Feb 4, 2026

@Dillonmcewan -- I hope I was able to get this fixed, see PR here: #391

Could you try to approve again to see if it'll take?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@felix91gr felix91gr felix91gr left review comments

@PLeVasseur PLeVasseur Awaiting requested review from PLeVasseur

+2 more reviewers

@workingjubilee workingjubilee workingjubilee left review comments

@Dillonmcewan Dillonmcewan Dillonmcewan approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@rcseacord rcseacord

Labels

chapter: types-and-traits coding guideline An issue related to a suggestion for a coding guideline

Projects

[Safety Critical Rust Consortium Coding Guidelines] Work Items
Status: No status

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@rcseacord @felix91gr @Dillonmcewan @PLeVasseur @workingjubilee