fix code blocks in doc comments inconsistently using 3 or 4 spaces of indentation
The metadata collector script was treating the space lines all start with as indentation. This caused code block's triple backticks to get a space in front of it, like this:
```
```rust
^ this space
```
Code after that that is indented with 4 spaces will only have 3 of those rendered.
Example (taken from [here](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/missing_panics_doc)):
```rust
...
pub fn divide_by(x: i32, y: i32) -> i32 {
if y == 0 { // 3 spaces
panic!("Cannot divide by 0") // 7 spaces
...
```
Also added 'compile_fail' alongside the other rustdoc directives (second code block [here](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/macro_metavars_in_unsafe) had no highlighting), fixed a doc comment using 'rs' instead of 'rust' and removed some spaces causing an extra missing space of indentation (see second code block [here](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/map_err_ignore)).
changelog: none
Replace `rustc_semver` with `rustc_session::RustcVersion`
Allows dropping a dependency but there is a behaviour change here, the following versions are no longer accepted:
* `1` (would need to be `1.0` or `1.0.0`)
* `1.0.0-alpha`
* `1.0.0-alpha.2`
* `1.0.0-beta`
But this seems unlikely to effect anybody, I did some GitHub searching and found no occurrences outside our UI tests
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: none
Fix case where doc_markdown is triggered on words ending with "ified"
Fixes#13097.
r? `@Alexendoo`
changelog: Fix case where doc_markdown is triggered on words ending with "ified"
[`macro_metavars_in_unsafe`]: recognize metavariables in tail expressions
Fixes#13219
`macro_metavars_in_unsafe` keeps track of the current "expansion depth" (incremented/decremented when entering/leaving a macro span) to tell if an expression from the root context is contained within a macro (see the doc comment I added for a hopefully better explanation)
Before this PR, we didn't increment said `expn_depth` for `unsafe` blocks within macros, because we already do that in `visit_stmt` anyway, so it would work fine for statements, but that's not enough for tail expressions of an unsafe block.
So we now also increment it for macro unsafe blocks.
Also updated the comment for `expn_depth` while I'm at it because "This is not necessary for correctness" isn't correct now that I think about it
------
changelog: none
Respect allow `inconsistent_struct_constructor` on the struct definition
Closes#13203
Now we check if the target type is marked with `#[allow(clippy:inconsistent_struct_constructor)]` before lining.
As a side-effect of this change, The rule in the subject no longer runs on non-local `AdtDef`s. However, as suggested by `@Jarcho` it shouldn't be a big deal since most of the time we didn't have access to this information anyway.
> You can't get lint attributes from other crates. I would probably just restrict the lint to only work with types from the current crate while you're at it. Upstream crates don't have a definition order from the point of view of the current crate (with the exception of #[repr(C)] structs).
changelog: Respect allow `inconsistent_struct_constructor` on the struct definition.
Don't use `LateContext` in the constant evaluator
This also changes the interface to require explicitly creating the context. `constant` could be added back in, but the others are probably not worth it.
A couple of bugs have been fixed. The wrong `TypeckResults` was used once when evaluating a constant, and the wrong `ParamEnv` was used by some callers (there wasn't a way to use the correct one).
changelog: none
Add lint for `unused_result_ok`
This PR adds a lint to capture the use of `expr.ok();` when the result is not _really_ used.
This could be interpreted as the result being checked (like it is with `unwrap()` or `expect`) but
it actually only ignores the result.
`let _ = expr;` expresses that intent better.
This was also mentionned in #8994 (although not being the main topic of that issue).
changelog: [`misleading_use_of_ok`]: Add new lint to capture `.ok();` when the result is not _really_ used.
Remove `multispan_sugg[_with_applicability]`
They're thin wrappers over the corresponding diag method so we should just use that instead
changelog: none
Fix [`redundant_slicing`] when the slice is behind a mutable reference
Fixes#12751
changelog: Fix [`redundant_slicing`] when the slice is behind a mutable reference and a immutable reference is expected.
When a suggestion part is for already present code, do not highlight it. If after that there are no highlights left, do not show the suggestion at all.
Fix clippy lint suggestion incorrectly treated as `span_help`.
Fix `redundant_closure` false positive with closures has return type contains `'static`
Fix#13073 .
Please enable "ignore white-space change" settings in github UI for easy reviewing.
HACK: The third commit contains a hack to check if a type `T: 'static` when `fn() -> U where U: 'static`.
I don't have a clean way to check for it.
changelog: [`redundant_closure`] Fix false positive with closures has return type contains `'static`
Fix false positive for `missing_backticks` in footnote references
Fixes#13183.
changelog: Fix false positive for `missing_backticks` in footnote references
Emit `if_let_mutex` in presence of other mutexes
Currently (master, not nightly nor stable) `if_let_mutex` does not emit a warning here:
```rs
let m1 = Mutex::new(10);
let m2 = Mutex::new(());
if let 100..=200 = *m1.lock().unwrap() {
m2.lock();
} else {
m1.lock();
}
```
It currently looks for the first call to `.lock()` on *any* mutex receiver inside of the if/else body, and only later (outside of the visitor) checks that the receiver matches the mutex in the scrutinee. That means that in cases like the above, it finds the `m2.lock()` expression, stops the visitor, fails the check that it's the same mutex (`m2` != `m1`) and then does not look for any other `.lock()` calls.
So, just make the receiver check also part of the visitor so that we only stop the visitor when we also find the right receiver.
The first commit has the actual changes described here. The sceond one just unnests all the `if let`s
----
changelog: none
