Google Style Guides

Rust Style Guide

This document is a style guide for the usage of the Rust programming language at Google. In this context, “style” refers to more than just formatting; it includes guidance on API and implementation design.

Rust is used in many places, including google3, Android, ChromeOS, Fuchsia, and Chrome, and we’d like for Rust usage at Google to be consistent both within and across codebases. In addition to bringing consistency to our Rust code, style guidance also helps establish a standard of quality.

Background

Scope

The current scope of authority of the rules outlined in this guide:

Goals of the style guide

By and large, we have this document for the same reasons we have a C++ style guide.

Most style rules come from one or more of the goals listed below.

Style rules should prioritize readability and maintainability over writeability

We expect our code to be around for long periods of time, and we consider a little bit of extra effort applied during code writing to be worth it in the long run if the style rule improves readability.

Style rules should favor better automation

Large-Scale Changes (LSCs) are common at Google, and consistency helps make LSCs easier to carry out.

Style rules should be consistent with the wider Rust ecosystem where possible

The broader Rust ecosystem already has a pretty good amount of consistency in style, and we should rely on that where possible to reduce surprise and make it less work to learn Google’s Rust style.

Style rules should pull their weight

Every Rust developer and reviewer at Google has to keep these style rules in mind: as such, we should be careful to include rules that have a tangible benefit.

Style rules may help avoid minor style disagreements

There are many cases where reasonable people may disagree about a style, and we expect that disagreement to show up often on CLs. Having a style rule helps avoid having to rehash this each time. Rules in this category that do not have other benefits should be kept to a minimum.

Follow public Rust style rules

Follow the official public Rust style rules to the extent they don’t conflict with this style guide.

A “conflict” would be a case where this style guide suggests a pattern that is discouraged, or counter to the primary encouraged pattern in the Rust style guide.

Why does the guidance in this style guide deviate from regular Rust style rules?

Most style guides have three goals: consistency, readability, and encouraging good API design. Regardless of the specific choices made, it helps everyone to have these choices made beforehand to limit bikeshedding.

This style guide shares those goals, but it also has an additional goal not seen as often: smoothing the way for Large-Scale Changes (LSCs). Large codebases like many of the ones at Google occasionally need to run codebase-spanning refactorings that are assisted by tooling: for this to work well, the code should be something tooling has an easy time working with. Consistency helps for this, but so does having deliberate refactor-friendly patterns.

Apply API design rules in context

When applying rules that relate to API design, you should distinguish two types of code:

For library code, style guide rules that concern API design are binding.

For application code, the rules on API design are a strong recommendation. As you apply them, keep in mind that since application code is written to solve a specific problem, it should generally favor simplicity and directness over broad reusability. Avoid premature generalization and abstraction; focus on what is required to meet the immediate need.

Code organization

Terminology:

The following sections convey that in Chromium, it is preferable to not make use of all possibilities of splitting modules across files.

Prefer small crates [chrome]

Prefer small crates in Chromium; ideally, but not necessarily, a single file (focusing on one abstraction). If your code can be split up into small crates, do so.

A crate corresponds to a single rust_static_library (chrome) rule, which may contain one or more .rs files.

Additional considerations:

Larger crates are allowed when trait impl coherence rules force multiple types and traits to be included in one library, or if you’re building a large foundational library.

Rationale

Fine-grained library targets are recommended in Chromium due to the massive size of our codebase, non-local effects of adding dependencies in the build graph, and to improve performance of parallel compilation and build caching.

Use flat file layout for rust_library sources [chrome]

In Chromium .rs source files belonging to one rust_library (one Rust crate) must reside in a single directory.

Don’t use subdirectories to organize files that belong to a single crate. If organizing one crate’s files into subdirectories feels necessary, this is a strong indication that the crate has grown too large and should be split.

This crate layout is intentionally different from the conventional Cargo directory structure typically used in open-source repositories.

Exception: Rust code in //third_party that is also built with Cargo should follow the conventional Cargo directory structure.

Rationale

The approach in Chromium is driven by the following factors:

Name source files and leaf modules after the primary user-defined item

When a leaf module has a primary user-defined item (e.g., Foo), the module should be named after that item (e.g., mod foo and foo.rs).

Leaf modules that are not primarily about any particular abstraction can be named as desired.

Rationale

This makes it easy to identify the content/purpose of a source file or leaf module at a glance.

Don’t implement APIs in non-leaf modules

The only items in non-leaf modules should be module declarations (not definitions) and re-exports.

Note that the definition of leaf modules allows the following sub-modules: mod test and cross-language binding modules like #[cxx::bridge].

Exceptions:

Rationale

This makes it easier to find things, and avoids mixing structure and contents.

Don’t use glob imports

Don’t use glob imports, except in the following situations where you may optionally do so at your own discretion:

If using third-party crates that encourage a prelude, it is up to the reviewer’s discretion to allow it.

This also means that defining preludes should be avoided.

Rationale

Glob imports increase toil for code janitors running LSCs, and make it harder to know where a type comes from in contexts without xrefs.

A use statement should import items from one module

This rule corresponds to the rustfmt setting imports_granularity = Module.

Basically, there should not be any ::’s inside the {..} block of a use statement. For example:

use foo::Foo;
use foo::bar::Bar;
use foo::bar::Baz;

use foo::Foo;
use foo::bar::{Bar, Baz};

use foo::{Foo, bar::Bar};

Prefer locally-scoped trait imports

Import traits within function bodies, unless the trait’s methods are used extensively throughout the file.

fn foo(x: u8) {
    // Import the trait within a function, not at the module scope.
    use std::str::FromStr;

    let string: String = x.parse();
}

Qualify calls to top-level functions with a module name

To use top-level functions defined in other modules or crates, import their module and call them with modulename::functionname(). For example:

use std::mem;

let x = mem::transmute(y);

use std::mem::transmute;

let x = transmute(y);

Exceptions:

Rationale

Many Rust codebases consistently keep a style such that unqualified lowercase names are assumed local, so foo() can be assumed to be from the same module. This rule largely exists to avoid reviewer disagreements, the benefit is mostly consistency and a minor edge on reading code without xrefs.

Type names should be imported and used unqualified

By default, types and traits should be referenced in code without using their module path, e.g., code should use Regex, not regex::Regex, with a use regex::Regex at the top of the file or potentially in the relevant function.

Exceptions:

Rationale

This rule largely exists to avoid reviewer disagreements.

Use the appropriate import mechanism [chrome]

Code formatting and aesthetics

Use the appropriate formatting tool

Use the appropriate formatting tool (e.g., git cl format in Chromium).

Configuration (for style guide authors)

A codebase may choose to not apply the following rustfmt options if they care about building on stable and the option is unavailable on their stable Rust:

Opting out of automatic formatting

You may opt out of automatic formatting using #[rustfmt::skip], but only in the following situations:

Important: Formatting should not be skipped for personal style choices.

Ownership and borrowing

Avoid Rc and Arc

Prefer unique ownership and borrowing over Rc and Arc for managing memory.

Exception:

Rationale

Generally, Rust allows representing object graphs without using shared ownership smart pointers. These pointers add runtime overhead and their own unique complexity. Engineers coming from other languages might tend to use Rc and Arc too quickly.

Prefer borrows over deep copies

Use .clone() when you genuinely need a deep copy of an object.

Avoid using .clone() as a substitute for borrowing. Design code that works naturally with Rust’s ownership and borrowing rules. However, if the borrowing relationships become excessively complex, .clone() can be a pragmatic choice.

Consider the performance needs of the code while choosing between cloning and borrowing.

Note: This advice does not apply to cloning Rc or Arc pointers. Cloning reference-counted pointers does not create a deep copy, and is an expected way to use them.

Rationale

Deep copies can be expensive to make due to memory allocation and data copying.

Function inputs and outputs

Accept flexible references for immutable data

When functions accept borrowed, immutable data, use a reference type that affords the most flexibility. Pass references to the data itself instead of references to smart pointers, containers, or wrappers.

Use Instead of Why?
&T &Box<T> Borrow the data inside the box
&[T] &Vec<T> Accept any slice instead of specific containers
&str &String Accept a string slice instead of references to owned strings
Option<&T> &Option<T> Borrow the data inside the Option

Exceptions:

For context, see Clippy lints borrowed_box and ptr_arg.

Rationale

Accepting reference types that don’t mention specific smart pointers, containers, or wrappers makes functions more versatile and performant: callers can pass data held in a variety of ways without copying it first.

Iterators vs. owned collections in return types

Prefer returning iterators (either concrete types or impl Iterator) where possible over returning Vec<T>.

Note: In application code, returning a Vec<T> is fine if it simplifies the code and if flexibility and performance advantages of iterators are not clearly needed.

Exceptions:

Rationale

Highly reusable library code generally should strive to provide more flexible and performant APIs. Returning an iterator allows callers to choose how to consume the data: collect it into a vector, process it in a loop, or chain further iterator adapters. Some of these options allow users to avoid unnecessary allocations.

In application code, the usage patterns for a function are often easier to predict. If it is clear that performance is not a concern, or that data would be collected into a vector anyway, returning a vector makes for a simpler API.

Iterators vs. slices in function parameters

Highly reusable library code should accept iterators or impl IntoIterator if it only needs to iterate over the input.

Note: In application code, accepting a slice &[T] is fine if it simplifies the code and if flexibility and performance advantages of iterators are not clearly needed.

Rationale

Highly reusable library code generally should strive to provide more flexible and performant APIs. Functions that accept iterators offer callers:

In application code, the usage patterns for a function are often easier to predict. If it is clear that performance is not a concern, or that callers would always have a vector anyway, accepting a slice makes for a simpler API.

Accepting Into

When designing library APIs that accept a T but users are likely to have various types, consider accepting impl Into<T> instead of T if call-site ergonomics are paramount.

Tip: This should be balanced against code bloat concerns; it is not a requirement to use lots of Into<T> in your code.

Note: Application code should almost never use impl Into<T> parameters.

Rationale

Using impl Into<T> allows a function to directly accept various arguments of various compatible types. For example, a function accepting impl Into<String> could be called with a String or a &str literal directly.

The tradeoff here is balancing the convenience of avoiding a .into() at the callsite against the cost of generics (more complex API signature, increased code size, sometimes even type inference difficulties).

Prefer enum over bool in APIs

Use enum function parameters instead of bool in cases where the purpose of the parameter is not obvious.

If you do use bool, consider using an inline comment to document the purpose of the bool in an argument list.

Reporting errors

Choose the error reporting mechanism that fits your API contract: Option, Result, or panic!.

Use Option for simple failures where the cause is obvious and the caller would not benefit from further details. This is best for standard, anticipated outcomes like a missing value or a parsing mismatch.

// Good: The cause of the failure is obvious (integer overflow). No further
// details could be reasonably provided.
fn checked_add(a: u32, b: u32) -> Option<u32> { ... }

Use Result for recoverable failures where the caller needs context to handle the error. These are often “unavoidable” errors caused by external factors (like I/O or network) that even correctly implemented code cannot prevent with checks ahead of time. Nevertheless, the caller can reasonably anticipate the kinds of errors (a file-related function can fail with an I/O error). The error details allow the caller to distinguish failure modes and recover appropriately.

// Good: The caller needs to know *why* it failed (NotFound vs PermissionDenied).
fn open_file(path: &Path) -> Result<File, io::Error> { ... }

Use panic! to report bugs and violated invariants. These errors are avoidable: the program is missing a check, and is calling an operation without fulfilling a precondition. These defects must be fixed in the code, not handled at runtime, although coarse-grained recovery might be possible with catch_unwind.

// Good: Panics if the invariant (index must be in bounds) is violated.
// This indicates a bug in the caller's logic.
impl<T> MyVec<T> {
    pub fn remove(&mut self, index: usize) -> T {
        if index >= self.len() {
            panic!("index out of bounds");
        }
        // ...
    }
}

Note: Some codebases may choose to avoid panics entirely, and require even broken invariants to be reported via Result.

Exceptions:

Types

Newtypes versus type aliases

Use a newtype instead of a type alias in the following cases:

Prefer named fields over tuples and non-newtype tuple structs

Prefer types with named fields over tuples, as tuple indexes (.0, .1, …) quickly become confusing.

Exceptions:

Traits

Add trait implementations when they become necessary

As a general rule, low-level library code should anticipate users’ needs proactively, while application code should add trait impls as needed.

Implement known standard library traits instead of custom methods

If a method matches the purpose and behavior of a standard library trait, implement that trait. For example, instead of writing fn from_str(&str) -> Self on Foo, you should impl FromStr for Foo.

It is acceptable to have both the method and the trait impl for discoverability reasons.

For context, see Clippy lint should_implement_trait (list of traits).

Use #[derive()] if possible

Manual implementations should be avoided if they can be expressed as a #[derive()].

Generics versus dyn Trait

In libraries, prefer accepting generics (T: Trait or impl Trait) in function parameters over dyn Trait.

Exceptions:

Rationale

When to define a trait versus an inherent implementation

Define a trait only for the following purposes:

In all other cases where you want to implement functionality for a type, use an inherent implementation.

Don’t use traits merely to organize code.

Extension traits

An extension trait is a trait that adds methods to a type from a different crate.

What differentiates an extension trait from other traits is that its sole purpose is to add methods to the type; it is not intended for use in generics (T: Trait, impl Trait) or dynamic dispatch (dyn Trait). To indicate this, the name of an extension trait should carry the suffix ~Ext (for example, ForeignTypeExt).

In general, the team that owns the original type should also own the extension trait.

Exceptions:

Note: This rule is specifically about extension traits. It is relatively common to define a trait as an input trait (e.g., DateLike) and implement it on a bunch of foreign types.

Examples

extern crate foreign_crate;
use foreign_crate::ForeignType;

trait ForeignTypeExt {
  fn additional_method(&self);
}

impl ForeignTypeExt for ForeignType {
  fn additional_method(&self) { ... }
}

It is also possible to define an extension trait for every type that implements some foreign trait. Effectively, this is equivalent to adding default methods to the foreign trait:

extern crate foreign_crate;
use foreign_crate::ForeignTrait;

trait ForeignTraitExt {
  fn additional_method(&self);
}

impl<T: ForeignTrait> ForeignTraitExt for T {
  fn additional_method(&self) { ... }
}

Rationale

When the same team owns the extension trait and the type being extended, this helps avoid method name conflicts between the base type and the extension trait or between two extension traits.

Specific guidance for important traits

Pair important From impls with explicit constructor methods

If a type has an important From impl that is expected to be one of the primary ways of constructing it, add an inherent ::new(), ::new_from_foo()¸ or ::from_foo() method.

Options structs should implement Default

Structs with all-public fields that are primarily used as a “bag of options” for a function should implement Default.

Rationale

This enables convenient use of struct update syntax (Struct { a: 0, ..Default::default()} ).

Concurrency

Handling poison

Never reach inside a poisoned mutex to get at its insides, no matter how tempting the use case may seem.

Don’t use async / .await [chrome]

Don’t use async / .await in Chromium.

</section>

Don’t start new threads through the Rust standard library [chrome]

In Chromium, prefer to use sequences instead of threads.

Use fuchsia_sync::Mutex [Fuchsia]

Use Fuchsia’s mutex type, rather than one from std::sync or parking_lot.

Macros

When considering how to express an API, prefer in order:

When you decide to use a macro or code generation, please weigh the benefits against the costs:

Rationale

Prefer non-macro facilities: Macros can create dialects of the language that make it harder for engineers to work across the codebase. When a reader sees a usage of a macro, they can make fewer assumptions about that code than if it didn’t use a macro. Macros are harder to write correctly than regular Rust code.

Use macro_rules! for simple code generation: Since Rust macros operate on the AST, they can be less fragile than textual code generation.

Naming

Naming methods

Follow the Rust standard library style for naming methods. See also the guidance on naming conventions in the Comprehensive Rust course.

Specific considerations:

Naming lifetimes

Lifetimes should have descriptive names, especially type lifetimes.

Exceptions:

Naming generic parameters

Use a short name for your generic parameters (either single or multi character), related to the kind of thing they represent. Single-letter generics are okay, but the letter chosen should be somewhat indicative of the object type, ideally taken from the most important trait bound.

T or U are fine when the generics are in a relatively unbound context; i.e. it is an API intended for use with most types, like Vec<T>.

Naming extension traits

When naming an extension trait, give the name an ~Ext suffix (for example, ForeignTypeExt).

Naming initialization functions

Follow these guidelines when naming initialization functions:

Avoid abbreviations

Don’t use abbreviations (especially acronyms and initialisms) that someone outside your project is unlikely to know. Don’t abbreviate by deleting letters within a word.

See also the Google C++ Style Guide.

Exceptions:

When and how to write documentation

Add documentation comments to public APIs, potentially using the missing_doc lint to help with this.

Best practices for documentation comments:

Exceptions:

How to format documentation comments

Follow these guidelines when writing documentation comments:

It is acceptable, and even encouraged, to mix doc comments (/// and //!) and ordinary comments (//). If you have one thing you wish to document publicly, and another thing you want to note as an implementation comment, then use both! For example:

/// Finds the first `FooItem` with the given `name`, or `None` if not present.
// TODO: crbug.com/12345 - `name` should be &str, not String.
pub fn get_named(items: &[FooItem], name: String) -> Option<&FooItem> {...}

Rationale

Many, though not all, languages have a different commenting convention (such as extra * characters) for doc comments as opposed to implementation comments. Rust and Python are notable for not just having different commenting conventions, but an actual different syntax entirely. This has concrete benefits to the Rust ecosystem:

Other Rust features

Unsafe code

Don’t write unsafe code unless there is no way to implement the same functionality with safe code.

If you do have to write unsafe code:

No unstable features

Don’t use unstable features.

Exceptions:

Getters and setters

Writing and naming getters and setters should follow these guidelines:

Examples

impl Stuff {
   fn foo(&self) -> &Foo { ...  }
   fn foo_mut(&mut self) -> &mut Foo { ... }

   /// Sets "baz" property to `None` and returns the old value.
   fn take_baz(&mut self) -> Option<Baz> { ... }

   fn set_foo(&mut self, foo: Foo) { ... }

   /// Calls `f` with a borrow of the "bar" property.
   /// Returns the return value of `f`.
   fn with_bar<R>(&self, f: impl FnOnce(&Bar) -> R) -> R { ... }

   /// Calls `f` with a mutable borrow of the "bar" property.
   /// Returns the return value of `f`.
   fn with_mut_bar<R>(&self, f: impl FnOnce(&mut i32) -> R) -> R { ... }

   /// Sets "foo" property to `foo` and returns the old value.
   fn replace_foo(&mut self, foo: Foo) -> Foo  { ... }
}

More on accessors that accept closures

Accessors that accept a closure (.with_foo()) are typically invoked as object.with_foo(|foo| do_something_with(foo)). They can be a good choice in the following situations:

A with_foo() accessor will often allow the closure to return a value and forward it by returning it from with_foo().

If you need to provide two closure-accepting accessors, one for read-only access and one for mutable access, it is common to name them with_foo() and with_mut_foo(). Otherwise, with_foo() is often also used for mutating accessors.

Implement expected API sets together

If you implement len(), also implement is_empty(). For context, see Clippy lint len_without_is_empty.

Do not access items marked #[doc(hidden)] that you don’t own

Treat items marked #[doc(hidden)] as private. Don’t access them unless you own the code.

Use const functions responsibly

Mark a public function as const only if you expect it to remain const in the future (or can commit to helping clients migrate when it changes).

Rationale

It’s a breaking change to turn a const function into a regular function.

Avoid overloading for non-mathematical purposes

Use operator overloads for their original mathematical/logical purpose, not just to make the code more concise (as “syntax sugar”).

Apply #[non_exhaustive] to publicly-exposed enums

If an enum is part of a public API used by other teams, mark it #[non_exhaustive].

Exceptions:

For context, see Clippy lint exhaustive_enums.

Rationale

Marking an enum #[non_exhaustive] forces users to include a wildcard arm (_ => ...) in match statements. This ensures code continues to compile when new variants are added to the enum later.

This rule is primarily important for enums used across team boundaries, because the scope of the breakage could be significant. Enums used only a small number of times can’t create a large breakage and thus may ignore this rule.

Apply #[non_exhaustive] to public structs with public fields

Structs with public fields that are part of a public API used by other teams should be marked #[non_exhaustive].

Exceptions:

Rationale

Adding a new field (even a private one) to a struct with all public fields is a breaking change, because callers can no longer name all fields in a struct literal.

A #[non_exhaustive] struct can’t be constructed with the struct literal syntax, except for the code in the same crate. This allows new private fields to be added without breaking users.

This rule is primarily important for structs used across team boundaries, because the scope of the breakage could be significant. Structs used only a small number of times can’t create a large breakage and thus may ignore this rule.

#[must_use] on functions

Use #[must_use] on functions in these cases:

#[must_use] on types

Use #[must_use] on types intended to be returned by functions that would otherwise be annotated #[must_use] according to the rules above.

Examples:

Do not run code before main()

Do not cause code to run before main(), for example by using techniques such as the ctor crate.

Implementation concerns

Don’t overuse type inference

Add enough explicit types so that someone familiar with the codebase can figure out what the inferred types are.

Prefer to add the types to variable declarations, rather than as turbofishes. If the compiler forces you to add a turbofish, it is generally fine to add a _ inference marker.

Specific situations in which you should probably add types:

Prefer pattern matching over check-then-unwrap

Avoid potentially panicking operations when the input data guarantees they cannot panic. For example, instead of using Option::unwrap on a value known to be valid, use pattern matching to prove correctness to the compiler.

// Good: The match arm proves to the compiler that `x` is `Some`.
// A panic is obviously not possible.
if let Some(value) = option {
    use_value(value);
}

// Bad: Correctness of `unwrap` relies on a runtime check that `option` is `Some`.
if option.is_some() {
    use_value(option.unwrap());
}

Prefer expect over unwrap

If a panic is necessary because an invariant cannot be expressed in the type system, prefer expect over unwrap to document the reason.

Don’t omit patterns on non_exhaustive enums when matching

Prefer to list all enum variants in match statements over non_exhaustive enums.

If you don’t care about specific variants, place them in the wildcard arm. If you only care about specific variants, use an if let or a let … else {}.

Examples:

#[non_exhaustive]
pub enum Shape {
    Circle,
    Square,
    Triangle,
}

fn process_shape(shape: Shape) {
  match shape {
    Shape::Circle => println!("It's a circle"),
    Shape::Square => println!("It's a square"),
    // Triangle and any future variants don't require any actions.
    Shape::Triangle | _ => {}
  }
}

fn process_shape(shape: Shape) {
  if let Shape::Circle = shape {
    println!("It's a circle"),
  }
}

fn process_shape(shape: Shape) {
  match shape {
    Shape::Circle => println!("It's a circle"),
    _ => {}
  }
}

Exceptions:

This is covered by the built-in lint non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns which you can enable on your code.

Use context strings to clarify assertions

While some assertions are self-explanatory, many benefit from additional context that clarifies why an assertion is expected to hold, or what caused it to be violated. Use the optional format string argument for assert! to convey this context.

You should always consider adding context, but particularly in the following situations:

Examples

Explaining why an assertion should hold

    assert!(
        values.is_sorted(),
        "`values` is populated from a `PriorityQueue`, so we expect it to be sorted"
    );

Logging a value to clarify why the assertion failed

assert!(refund > 0, "Refund must be positive, got {refund:?});

Flagging misuse of an API

impl Database {
    ...

    fn execute_query(&self, query: &str) {
        assert!(self.stream.is_some(), "Call connect() before executing queries");
    }

    ...
}

Don’t use the context string merely to repeat the condition

assert(!values.is_sorted(), "values should always be sorted");

Don’t use iterator combinator chains when direct iteration is clearer

Avoid using combinator chains in ways that hurt readability. Specifically:

Combinators are preferable for shorter chains and for cases where the combinator itself provides a lot of logic that would otherwise have to be written out in the corresponding for loop.

Examples

Complex combinator chains

Here’s an example of a combinator chain that is hard to read because it involves conditionals and mutates external state:

let mut error_count = 0;
let _processed_items: Vec<_> = items
    .into_iter()
    .map(transformation_that_may_fail)
    .map(|result| {
        if result.is_err() {
            error_count += 1;
        }
        result
    })
    .filter_map(Result::ok)
    .collect();

The corresponding for loop is easier to read:

let mut error_count = 0;
let mut processed_items = Vec::with_capacity(items.len());

for item in items {
    match transformation_that_may_fail(item) {
        Ok(val) => processed_items.push(val),
        Err(_) => error_count += 1,
    }
}

Combinator chains in for loops

Avoid constructing a combinator chain in the header of a for loop:

for bug in bug_descriptions
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|description| parse_bug_description(description).ok())
    .filter(|bug| bug.priority <= Priority::P1)
{
    assign_bug(bug);
}

Instead, assign the combinator chain to a variable. This reduces clutter, and the variable name documents what the combinator chain does:

let urgent_bugs = bug_descriptions
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|description| parse_bug_description(description).ok())
    .filter(|bug| bug.priority <= Priority::P1);

for bug in urgent_bugs {
    assign_bug(bug);
}

When to prefer a combinator chain

Here’s an example where a combinator chain is preferable:

let threshold_exceeded = values.iter().any(|&v| v > threshold);

The corresponding for loop is harder to read and reinvents the logic contained in any():

let mut threshold_exceeded = false;
for v in values {
  if v > threshold {
    threshold_exceeded = true;
    break;
  }
}

Don’t call panic::catch_unwind

Use of panic::catch_unwind is prohibited in first-party Rust code.

Exceptions:

Rationale

Rust code may be used in many environments, and panic::catch_unwind will only function correctly in environments with panic=unwind. While the final panic disposition of prod binaries has not yet been determined, Chrome, Android, and Fuchsia all require panic=abort.

Prefer format! / write! for concatenation and substitution

Prefer format!() and write!() to other alternatives in the following situations:

Rationale

Use the right per-codebase test framework

Most codebases use their own specific test framework rather than #[test].

This site is open source. Improve this page.