Add lint to check for boolean comparison in assert macro calls
This PR adds a lint to check if an assert macro is using a boolean as "comparison value". For example:
```rust
assert_eq!("a".is_empty(), false);
```
Could be rewritten as:
```rust
assert!(!"a".is_empty());
```
PS: The dev guidelines are amazing. Thanks a lot for writing them!
changelog: Add `bool_assert_comparison` lint
* Added expression check for shared_code_in_if_blocks
* Finishing touches for the shared_code_in_if_blocks lint
* Applying PR suggestions
* Update lints yay
* Moved test into subfolder
Lint: filter(Option::is_some).map(Option::unwrap)
Fixes#6061
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog:
* add new lint for filter(Option::is_some).map(Option::unwrap)
First Rust PR, so I'm sure I've violated some idioms. Happy to change anything.
I'm getting one test failure locally -- a stderr diff for `compile_test`. I'm having a hard time seeing how I could be causing it, so I'm tentatively opening this in the hopes that it's an artifact of my local setup against `rustc`. Hoping it can at least still be reviewed in the meantime.
I'm gathering that since this is a method lint, and `.filter(...).map(...)` is already checked, the means of implementation needs to be a little different, so I didn't exactly follow the setup boilerplate. My way of checking for method calls seems a little too direct (ie, "is the second element of the expression literally the path for `Option::is_some`?"), but it seems like that's how some other lints work, so I went with it. I'm assuming we're not concerned about, eg, closures that just end up equivalent to `Option::is_some` by eta reduction.
Add the from_str_radix_10 lint
changelog: added the new `from_str_radix_10` which sometimes replaces calls to `primitive::from_str_radix` to `str::parse`
This is ready to be merged, although maybe the category should be `pedantic` instead of `style`? I'm not sure where it fits better.
Closes#6713.
New lint: default_numeric_fallback
fixes#6064
r? `@flip1995`
As we discussed in [here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/Issue.20.236064/near/224647188) and [here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/Issue.20clippy.236064/near/224746333), I start implementing this lint from the strictest version.
In this PR, I'll allow the below two cases to pass the lint to reduce FPs.
1. Appearances of unsuffixed numeric literals in `Local` if `Local` has a type annotation, for example:
```rust
// Good.
let x: i32 = 1;
// Also good.
let x: (i32, i32) = if cond {
(1, 2)
} else {
(2, 3)
};
```
2. Appearances of unsuffixed numeric literals in args of `Call` or `MethodCall` if corresponding arguments of their signature have concrete types, for example:
```rust
fn foo_mono(x: i32) -> i32 {
x
}
fn foo_poly<T>(t: T) -> t {
t
}
// Good.
let x = foo_mono(13);
// Still bad.
let x: i32 = foo_poly(13);
```
changelog: Added restriction lint: `default_numeric_fallback`
Add new lint `filter_map_identity`
<!--
Thank you for making Clippy better!
We're collecting our changelog from pull request descriptions.
If your PR only includes internal changes, you can just write
`changelog: none`. Otherwise, please write a short comment
explaining your change.
If your PR fixes an issue, you can add "fixes #issue_number" into this
PR description. This way the issue will be automatically closed when
your PR is merged.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
Note that you can skip the above if you are just opening a WIP PR in
order to get feedback.
Delete this line and everything above before opening your PR.
-->
This commit adds a new lint named filter_map_identity.
This lint is the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for the usage of `filter_map`.
---
Closes#6643
changelog: Added a new lint: `filter_map_identity`
This commit adds a new lint named `filter_map_identity`. This lint is
the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for `filter_map`.
Closes#6643
New Lint: Manual Flatten
This is a draft PR for [Issue 6564](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6564).
r? `@camsteffen`
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
---
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: Add new lint [`manual_flatten`] to check for loops over a single `if let` expression with `Result` or `Option`.
New Lint: inspect_then_for_each
**Work In Progress**
This PR addresses [Issue 5209](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5209) and adds a new lint called `inspect_then_for_each`.
Current seek some guidance.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
---
changelog: Add [`inspect_for_each`] lint for the use of `inspect().for_each()` on `Iterators`.
