Changelog for Clippy 1.79 🎓
Two cat ears from waffle,
A tail and a dress,
That's our Jyn,
The magnificent cat
~ =^.^=
---
### The cat of this release is: *Jyn* submitted by `@jyn514:`
<img height=600 src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/assets/17087237/2f902dea-9ad5-4ad2-b281-1f152b7ad7c7" alt="The cat(s) of this Clippy release" />
Cats for the next release can be nominated in the comments :D
---
changelog: none
Make `for_each_expr` visit closures by default, rename the old version `for_each_expr_without_closures`
A lot of the time `for_each_expr` is picked when closures should be visited so I think it makes sense for this to be the default with the alternative available for when you don't need to visit them.
The first commit renames `for_each_expr` to `for_each_expr_without_closures` and `for_each_expr_with_closures` to `for_each_expr`
The second commit switches a few uses that I caught over to include closures to fix a few bugs
changelog: none
Handle const effects inherited from parent correctly in `type_certainty`
This fixes a (debug) ICE in `type_certainty` that happened in the [k256 crate]. (I'm sure you can also specifically construct an edge test case that will run into type_certainty false positives visible outside of debug builds from this bug)
<details>
<summary>Minimal ICE repro</summary>
```rs
use std::ops::Add;
Add::add(1_i32, 1).add(i32::MIN);
```
</details>
The subtraction here overflowed:
436675b477/clippy_utils/src/ty/type_certainty/mod.rs (L209)
... when we have something like `Add::add` where `add` fn has 0 generic params but the `host_effect_index` is `Some(2)` (inherited from the parent generics, the const trait `Add`), and we end up executing `0 - 1`.
(Even if the own generics weren't empty and we didn't overflow, this would still be wrong because it would assume that a trait method with 1 generic parameter didn't have any generics).
So, *only* exclude the "host" generic parameter if it's actually bound by the own generics
changelog: none
[k256 crate]: https://github.com/RustCrypto/elliptic-curves/tree/master/k256
Lint `manual_unwrap_or_default` for Result as well
This PR is modifying the `manual_unwrap_or_default` to be applied/linted for `Result`s as well. It is part of the fixes desired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12618
changelog:[`manual_unwrap_or_default`]: Lint for Result types.
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions" on nightly
As discussed in [today's t-compiler meeting](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-06/near/443079505), this reverts PR #124099 to fix P-critical beta regressions #125199.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Opening as draft so that ``@wesleywiser`` and ``@apiraino,`` you can tell me whether you wanted:
1. a `beta-accepted` revert of #124099 on nightly (this PR)? That will need to be backported to beta (even though #126093 may be the last of those)
2. a revert of #124099 on beta?
3. all of the above?
I also opened #126102, another draft PR to revert #124099 on beta, should you choose options 2 or 3.
Fix grammer for the Safety documentation check
The original message ("unsafe function's docs miss `# Safety` section") reads quite awkwardly. I've changed it to "unsafe function's docs are missing a `# Safety` section" to have it read better.
```
changelog: [`missing_headers`]: Tweak the grammar in the lint message
```
[`overly_complex_bool_expr`]: Fix trigger wrongly on never type
fixes#12689
---
changelog: fix [`overly_complex_bool_expr`] triggers wrongly on never type
Dedup nonminimal_bool_methods diags
Relates to #12379
Fix `nonminimal_bool` lint so that it doesn't check the same span multiple times.
`NotSimplificationVisitor` was called for each expression from `NonminimalBoolVisitor` whereas `NotSimplificationVisitor` also recursively checked all expressions.
---
changelog: [`nonminimal_bool`]: Fix duplicate diagnostics
The original message ("unsafe function's docs miss `# Safety` section")
reads quite awkwardly. I've changed it to "unsafe function's docs are missing
a `# Safety` section" to have it read better.
Signed-off-by: Paul R. Tagliamonte <paultag@gmail.com>
Currently we have an awkward mix of fallible and infallible functions:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
maybe_new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
(maybe_new_parser_from_file) // missing
(new_parser_from_source_file) // missing
maybe_new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
maybe_source_file_to_stream
```
We could add the two missing functions, but instead this commit removes
of all the infallible ones and renames the fallible ones leaving us with
these which are all fallible:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
source_file_to_stream
```
This requires making `unwrap_or_emit_fatal` public so callers of
formerly infallible functions can still work.
This does make some of the call sites slightly more verbose, but I think
it's worth it for the simpler API. Also, there are two `catch_unwind`
calls and one `catch_fatal_errors` call in this diff that become
removable thanks this change. (I will do that in a follow-up PR.)
Only run `suboptimal_flops` on inherent method calls
Fixes#12881
`suboptimal_flops` was making the wrong assumption that a `.log()` method call on a float literal must choose the inherent log method that will always have an argument present (in which case `args[0]` indexing would be fine), but that wasn't the case in the linked issue because at the point of the method call, the exact float type hadn't been inferred yet (and method selection can't select inherent methods when the exact float type has not yet been inferred, in which case it falls back to looking for trait impls and chooses the one that didn't have any parameters).
This fixes it by actually making sure it's a call to an inherent method (could also fix the linked ICE by simply using fallibly indexing via `.get()`, but this felt like it'd fix the root cause: even if there were one argument, it would still be wrong to emit a warning there because it's not the `log` method the lint was expecting). I'm not sure if we need that extra function be in `clippy_utils` but it feels like it could be useful.
changelog: Fixes an ICE in [`suboptimal_flops`]
Using Clippy as a proper noun when refering to the unique entity Clippy
I was reading some documentation (specially the book) and I notice some few usages of the word `clippy` when refering to the Project/Tool. As we already have in the majority of the documentation, in those cases, Clippy is a proper noun, and because of that should be used capitalized.
This is, for sure, not an exhaustive change: quite the opposity, it was just some cases that I could verify with not so much effort.
changelog: Docs: capitalizing the `clippy` word in some usages.
Modify str_to_string to be machine-applicable
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12768
I'm not sure if there is any potential for edge cases with this - since it only ever acts on `&str` types I can't think of any, and especially since the methods do the same thing anyway.
changelog: allow `str_to_string` lint to be automatically applied
Uplift `{Closure,Coroutine,CoroutineClosure}Args` and friends to `rustc_type_ir`
Part of converting the new solver's `structural_traits.rs` to be interner-agnostic.
I decided against aliasing `ClosureArgs<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` to `ClosureArgs<'tcx>` because it seemed so rare. I could do so if desired, though.
r? lcnr
