Destructure args in `methods`
changelog: none
This changes the main pattern in `methods` to match and destructure the method call args at the same time as the method name, and pass individual arg `Expr`s to the lint impls.
```rust
// before
["expect", ..] => expect::check(cx, expr, arg_lists[0]);
// after
("expect", [arg]) => expect::check(cx, expr, recv, arg);
```
This makes the code safer since there is no risk of out of bounds `args[n]` everywhere. There will be no more collecting `method_names`, `arg_lists`, `method_spans` as a separate step - everything comes out of the `match`es. Chained methods are parsed in a nested `match`. This makes the code more verbose in some ways, but IMO it is much easier to follow.
~Definitely should wait for #6896. Just putting out the idea.~
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.
disable upper_case_acronyms for pub items - enum edition
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6803 (again... 😅 )
My previous fix did not work for enums because enum variants were checked separately in the `check_variant` function but it looks like we can't use that because we can't tell if the enum the variants belong to is declared as public or not (it always said `Inherited` for me)
I went and special-cased enums and iterated over all the variants "manually", but only, if the enums is not public.
---
changelog: fix upper_case_acronyms still firing on public enums (#6803)
Refactor types
r? `@flip1995`
This is the last PR to close#6724🎉
Also, this fixes#6936.
changelog: `vec_box`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
changelog: `linkedlist`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
changelog: `option_option`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
Improve `clone_on_copy`
This also removes the `clone_on_copy_mut` test as the same thing is covered in the `clone_on_copy` test.
changelog: `copy_on_clone` lint on chained method calls taking self by value
changelog: `copy_on_clone` only lint when using the `Clone` trait
changelog: `copy_on_clone` correct suggestion when the cloned value is a macro call.
Lint on `_.clone().method()` when method takes self by value
Set applicability correctly
Correct suggestion when the cloned value is a macro call. e.g. `m!(x).clone()`
Don't lint when not using the `Clone` trait
Allow missing panics doc if the panics occur only when debug-assertions is specified
fixes#6970
changelog: `missing_panics_doc`: Allow missing panics doc if the panics occur only when `debug-assertions` is specified.
Improve `expl_impl_clone_on_copy`
fixes: #1254
changelog: Check to see if the generic constraints are the same as if using derive for `expl_impl_clone_on_copy`
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
