Check whether operator is overrided with a `struct` operand.
The struct here refers to `struct`, `enum`, `union`.
Add and fix test for `no_effect` lint.
Tolerate hidden, binary files in tests/
Avoid scanning temporary files created by editors like this one created by Vim:
---- old_test_headers stdout ----
thread 'old_test_headers' panicked at tests/headers.rs:19:74: tests/ui/.regex.rs.swp: stream did not contain valid UTF-8 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
changelog: none
expending lint [`blocks_in_if_conditions`] to check match expr as well
closes: #11814
changelog: rename lint `blocks_in_if_conditions` to [`blocks_in_conditions`] and expand it to check blocks in match scrutinees
Avoid scanning temporary files created by editors like
this one created by Vim:
---- old_test_headers stdout ----
thread 'old_test_headers' panicked at tests/headers.rs:19:74:
tests/ui/.regex.rs.swp: stream did not contain valid UTF-8
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept length equality checks
Fixes#11835
The lint now allows indexing with indices 0 and 1 when an `assert!(x.len() == 2);` is found.
(Also fixed a typo in the doc example)
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept len equality checks as a valid assertion
`option_if_let_else`: do not trigger on expressions returning `()`
Fix#11893
Trigerring on expressions returning `()` uses the arguments of the `map_or_else()` rewrite only for their side effects. This does lead to code which is harder to read than the original.
changelog: [`option_if_let_else`]: do not trigger on unit expressions
add lint against unit tests in doctests
During RustLab, Alice Ryhl brought to my attention that the Andoid team stumbled over the fact that if one attempts to write a unit test within a doctest, it will be summarily ignored. So this lint should help people wondering why their tests won't run.
---
changelog: New lint: [`test_attr_in_doctest`]
[#11872](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11872)
Fix#11893
Trigerring on expressions returning `()` uses the arguments of the
`map_or_else()` rewrite only for their side effects. This does lead
to code which is harder to read than the original.
[`redundant_guards`]: catch `is_empty`, `starts_with` and `ends_with` on slices and `str`s
Fixes#11807
Few things worth mentioning:
- Taking `snippet`s is now done at callsite, instead of passing a span and doing it in `emit_redundant_guards`. This is because we now need custom suggestion strings in certain places, like `""` for `str::is_empty`.
- This now uses `snippet` instead of `snippet_with_applicability`. I don't think this really makes any difference for `MaybeIncorrect`, though?
- This could also lint byte strings, as they're of type `&[u8; N]`, but that can be ugly so I decided to leave it out for now
changelog: [`redundant_guards`]: catch `str::is_empty`, `slice::is_empty`, `slice::starts_with` and `slice::ends_with`
[`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
close#11357
----
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not float
clippy::suboptimal_flops used to not check if the second parameter to f32/f64.mul_add() was float. Since the method is only defined to take `Self` as parameters, the suggestion was wrong.
Fixes#11831
changelog: [`suboptimal_float`]: Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not f32/f64
[`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
Fixes#11816
Not a new lint, just a very small improvement to the existing `ptr_arg` lint which would have caught the linked issue.
The problem was that the lint checks if a `Vec`-specific method was called, that is, if the receiver is `Vec<_>`.
This is the case for `len` and `is_empty`, however these methods also exist on slices so we can still lint there.
This logic exists in a different lint, so we can just reuse that here.
Interestingly, there was even a comment up top that explained what it should have been doing, but the logic for it just wasn't there?
changelog: [`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
<sub>Also, this is my 100th PR to clippy 🎉 </sub>
`manual_try_fold`: check that `fold` is really `Iterator::fold`
Fix#11876
changelog: [`manual_try_fold`]: suggest using `try_fold` only for `Iterator::fold` uses
Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
Fixes#10045.
For the following code:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.map_or(Err("error"), Ok);
```
It suggests to instead write:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.ok_or("error");
```
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
suggest alternatives to iterate an array of ranges
works towards #7125
changelog: [`single_element_loop`]: suggest better syntax when iterating over an array of a single range
`@thinkerdreamer` and myself worked on this issue during a workshop by `@llogiq` at the RustLab 2023 conference. It is our first contribution to clippy.
When iterating over an array of only one element, _which is a range_, our change suggests to replace the array with the contained range itself. Additionally, a hint is printed stating that the user probably intended to iterate over the range and not the array. If the single element in the array is not a range, the previous suggestion in the form of `let {pat_snip} = {prefix}{arg_snip};{block_str}`is used.
This change lints the array with the single range directly, so any prefixes or suffixes are covered as well.
[`deprecated_semver`]: Allow `#[deprecated(since = "TBD")]`
"TBD" is allowed by rustdoc, saying that it will be deprecated in a future version. rustc will also not actually warn on it.
I found this while checking the rust-lang/rust with clippy.
changelog: [`deprecated_semver`]: allow using `since = "TBD"`
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: work with bodies instead of blocks separately
Fixes#11856
Before this change, this lint would check blocks independently of each other, which means that it misses `assert!()`s from parent blocks.
```rs
// check_block
assert!(x.len() > 1);
{
// check_block
// no assert here
let _ = x[0] + x[1];
}
```
This PR changes it to work with bodies rather than individual blocks. That means that a function will be checked in one go and we can remember if an `assert!` occurred anywhere.
Eventually it would be nice to have a more control flow-aware analysis, possibly by rewriting it as a MIR lint, but that's more complicated and I wanted this fixed first.
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept `assert!`s from parent blocks
Fix iter_kv_map false positive into_keys and into_values suggestion
fixes: #11752
changelog: [`iter_kv_map`]: fix false positive: Don't suggest `into_keys()` and `into_values()` if the MSRV is to low
Add tests for issues #10285, #10286, #10289, #10287Fixes#10285.
Fixes#10286.
Fixes#10289.
Fixes#10287.
This PR simply adds tests for the listed issues as they're already implemented so we can close them.
r? `@blyxyas`
changelog:none
[`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if never type is used for coercion
Fixes#11616
When we have something like
```rs
let _x: String = {
return Err(())?;
};
```
we shouldn't suggest removing the `return` because the `!`-ness of `return` is used to coerce the enclosing block to some other type. That will lead to a typeck error without a diverging expression like `return`.
changelog: [`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if `return`s never typed-ness is used for coercion
