6459: Check for redundant `matches!` with `Ready`, `Pending`, `V4`, `V6`
Fixes#6459.
```
changelog: [`redundant_pattern_matching`]: Add checks for `Poll::{Ready,Pending}` and `IpAddr::{V4,V6}` in `matches!`
```
new lint: `eager_transmute`
A small but still hopefully useful lint that looks for patterns such as `(x < 5).then_some(transmute(x))`.
This is almost certainly wrong because it evaluates the transmute eagerly and can lead to surprises such as the check being completely removed and always evaluating to `Some` no matter what `x` is (it is UB after all when the integer is not a valid bitpattern for the transmuted-to type). [Example](https://godbolt.org/z/xoY34fPzh).
The user most likely meant to use `then` instead.
I can't remember where I saw this but this is inspired by a real bug that happened in practice.
This could probably be a correctness lint?
changelog: new lint: [`eager_int_transmute`]
New lints `iter_filter_is_some` and `iter_filter_is_ok`
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result` and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
Fixes#11843
PS, I also made some minor documentations fixes in a case where a double tick (`) was included.
---
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
Do not consider `async { (impl IntoFuture).await }` as redundant
changelog: [`redundant_async_block`]: do not trigger on `IntoFuture` instances
Fix#11959
Move `uninhabited_references` to `nursery`
I think this lint has too many false positives and should be put in pedantic. See #11984 and #11985 for context.
The lint is already in beta and is causing trouble for us, so I would also like this PR to be backported to beta as well.
changelog: Moved [`uninhabited_references`] to `nursery` (Now allow-by-default)
[#11997](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11997)
(Check if this has been backported)
Fixes#11984.
[`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
This fixes the false negative mentioned in #11993: the lint only used to check for `return` expressions, and not a statement containing a `return` expression (doesn't close the issue tho since there's still a useful suggestion that we could make, which is to suggest `.ok_or()?`/`.ok_or_else()?` for `else { return Err(..) }`)
changelog: [`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
fix typo in infinite loop lint
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: This fixes a small typo introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11829
Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9965.
When you have `to_string().split('a')` or equivalent, it'll suggest to remove the `to_owned`/`to_string` part.
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Check whether out of bound when access a known length array with a constant index
fixes [Issue#11762](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11762)
Issue#11762 points that `Array references with known length are not flagged when indexed out of bounds`.
To fix this problem, it is needed to add check for `Expr::Index`. We expand this issue include reference and direct accessing a array.
When we access a array with a constant index `off`, and already know the length `size`, if `off >= size`, these code will throw an error, instead rustc's lint checking them or runtime panic happening.
changelog: [`out_of_bound_indexing`]: Add check for illegal accessing known length array with a constant index
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result`
and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as
that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
New Lint: `result_filter_map` / Mirror of `option_filter_map`
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map`.
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
I had to move around some code because the function def was too long 🙃.
I have also added some pattern checks on `option_filter_map`
don't visit nested bodies in `is_const_evaluatable`
Fixes#11939
This ICE happened in `if_let_some_else_none`, but the root problem is in one of the utils that it uses.
It is (was) possible for `is_const_evalutable` to visit nested bodies which would lead to it trying to get the type of one of the expressions with the wrong typeck table, which won't have the type stored.
Notably, for the expression `Bytes::from_static(&[0; 256 * 1024]);` in the linked issue, the array length is an anonymous const in which type checking happens on its own, so we can't use the typeck table of the enclosing function in there.
Visiting nested bodies is also not needed for checking whether an expression can be const, so I think it's safe to ignore just ignore them altogether.
changelog: Fix ICE when checking for constness in nested bodies
Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Currently, rustc `unconditional_recursion` doesn't detect cases like:
```rust
enum Foo {
A,
B,
}
impl PartialEq for Foo {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self == other
}
}
```
This is because the lint is currently implemented only for one level, and in the above code, `self == other` will then call `impl PartialEq for &T`, escaping from the detection. The fix for it seems to be a bit tricky (I started investigating potential solution to add one extra level of recursion [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...GuillaumeGomez:rust:trait-impl-recursion?expand=1) but completely broken at the moment).
I expect that this situation will remain for a while. In the meantime, I think it's acceptable to check it directly into clippy for the time being as a lot of easy cases like this one can be easily checked (next I plan to extend it to cover other traits like `ToString`).
changelog: Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
[`redundant_pattern_matching`]: lint `if let true`, `while let true`, `matches!(.., true)`
Closes#11917
This could also lint e.g. `if let (true, true, false) = (a, b, c)` and suggest `if a && b && c`, but that's a change in semantics (going from eager to lazy, so I just left it out for now. Could be a future improvement.
changelog: [`redundant_pattern_matching`]: lint `if let true`, `while let true`, `matches!(.., true)`
