Switch transmute_ptr_to_ptr to "pedantic" class.
Per discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6372, this lint has significant false positives.
changelog: transmute_ptr_to_ptr defaults to "allow".
Add lint to check for boolean comparison in assert macro calls
This PR adds a lint to check if an assert macro is using a boolean as "comparison value". For example:
```rust
assert_eq!("a".is_empty(), false);
```
Could be rewritten as:
```rust
assert!(!"a".is_empty());
```
PS: The dev guidelines are amazing. Thanks a lot for writing them!
changelog: Add `bool_assert_comparison` lint
Deprecate `filter_map`
Since #6591, `filter_map` does not even lint `filter().map()`. The cases that are still linted make no sense IMO. So this just removes/deprecates it.
changelog: Deprecate `filter_map` lint
Closes#3424Fixes#7050
Invalid null usage v2
This is continuation of #6192 after inactivity.
I plan to move paths into the compiler as diagnostic items after this is merged.
fixes#1703
changelog: none
* Added expression check for shared_code_in_if_blocks
* Finishing touches for the shared_code_in_if_blocks lint
* Applying PR suggestions
* Update lints yay
* Moved test into subfolder
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.
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`
