Fix and rename `overflow_check_conditional`
fixes#2457
Other changes:
* Limit the lint to unsigned types.
* Actually check if the operands are the same rather than using only the first part of the path.
* Allow the repeated expression to be anything as long as there are no side effects.
changelog: Rename `overflow_check_conditional` to `panicking_overflow_check` and move to `correctness`
Fix guidance of [`float_cmp`] and [`float_cmp_const`] to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Using `f32::EPSILON` or `f64::EPSILON` as the floating-point equality comparison error margin is incorrect, yet `float_cmp` has until now recommended this be done. This change fixes the given guidance (both in docs and compiler hints) to not reference these unsuitable constants.
Instead, the guidance now clarifies that the scenarios in which an absolute error margin is usable, provides a sample implementation for using a user-defined absolute error margin (as an absolute error margin can only be used-defined and may be different for different comparisons) and references the floating point guide for a reference implementation of relative error based equality comparison for cases where absolute error margins cannot be identified.
changelog: [`float_cmp`] Fix guidance to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
changelog: [`float_cmp_const`] Fix guidance to not incorrectly recommend `f__::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Fixes#6816
This lint makes Clippy warn about situations where an owned
struct is essentially recreated by moving all its fields into a
new instance of the struct. Until now this lint only triggered
for structs recreated from a base struct.
NB: The new functionality too will cause false positives for the
situation where a non-copy struct consisting of all copy members
is touched again in subsequent code.
Using `f32::EPSILON` or `f64::EPSILON` as the floating-point equality comparison error margin is incorrect, yet `float_cmp` has until now recommended this be done. This change fixes the given guidance (both in docs and compiler hints) to not reference these unsuitable constants.
Instead, the guidance now clarifies that the scenarios in which an absolute error margin is usable, provides a reference implementation of using a user-defined absolute error margin (as an absolute error margin can only be used-defined and may be different for different comparisons) and references the floating point guide for a reference implementation of relative error based equaltiy comparison for when absolute error margin cannot be used.
changelog: Fix guidance of [`float_cmp`] and [`float_cmp_const`] to not incorrectly recommend `f64::EPSILON` as the error margin.
Fixes#6816
Remove internal `compiler_lint_functions` lint
This internal lint has effectively been superseded by `disallowed_methods` when we started using that in #11811 (I didn't even know that we also had this internal lint at the time of when I created that PR).
Some of the methods that this looks for also don't exist anymore (`span_lint_note` and `span_lint_help`), though there was one that that lint had but wasn't disallowed in clippy.toml (`LintContext::lint`)
changelog: none
Refactor `assigning_clones`
Short list of changes:
* Inline and simplify `extract_call`
* Inline `is_ok_to_suggest`
* Inline `skip_drop_block`
* Check the HIR tree before the macro check
* Don't call `outer_expn_data`
* Use `find` instead of a loop in `clone_source_borrows_from_dest`
changelog: none
`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`: Trigger lint also for scrutinees in `while let` and `if let`
This lint should also work for `if let` and `while let`, so this PR makes it actually work.
For `while let`, I can't think of any reason why this lint shouldn't be enabled. The only problem is that the lint suggests moving the significant drop above the `while let`, which is clearly invalid in the case of `while let`. I don't know if this is fixable, but this PR simply disables the wrong suggestions.
For `if let`, it seems that another lint called `if_let_mutex` has some overlapping functionality. But `significant_drop_in_scrutinee` is a bit stricter, as it will trigger even if the `else` branch does not try to lock the same mutex.
changelog: [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`]: Trigger lint also for scrutinees in `while let` and `if let`.
r? `@blyxyas` (the third PR as promised in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12740#issuecomment-2094876350, thanks for your review!)
[`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix FP when arg ty is impl trait alias ty
closes: #13009
---
changelog: [`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix FP when arg ty is impl trait alias ty
Refactor `disallowed_methods` and narrow span
Using the span of the call site just produces noisy diagnostics for long calls. Especially multi-line calls.
changelog: none
Clarify that `modulo_one` only applies to ints
changelog: [`modulo_one`]: (docs) Clarify that it only applies to integers
This might be nitpicky, but it's more technically correct.
It also helps if a user skims through the docs, because they may believe it also applies to `{float}`s. This doc edit minimizes that possibility
Rename thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const to missing_const_for_thread_local
Close#12934
As discussed at #12934 name `thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const` sounds against convention for other lints which describe the issue/wrong code but not suggestion and it is quite long. The new name take example from existing lint `missing_const_for_fn`
changelog: `thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const` : Rename to [`missing_const_for_thread_local`]
feat: add cfg_not_test lint
<!--
- \[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`
- \[ ] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
-->
Fixes#11234
changelog: new lint: [`cfg_not_test`]
I don't know whether to lint only the `attr` or also the item associated to it. I guess this would mean putting the check in another place than `check_attribute` but I can't find a way to get the associated item to the attribute.
Also, I'm not sure how to document this lint, I feel like my explications are bad.
Remove `is_in_test_module_or_function`
Uses are replaced with `is_in_test` for consistency with other lints and to simplify the implementation of the lints. This means the module name is no longer checked, but that was a horrible hack from a time when late passes couldn't see `#[cfg(..)]` attributes.
changelog: none
