Downgrade let_unit_value to pedantic
Given that the false positive in #1502 is marked E-hard and I don't have much hope of it getting fixed, I think it would be wise to disable this lint by default. I have had to suppress this lint in every substantial codebase (\>100k line) I have worked in. Any time this lint is being triggered, it's always the false positive case.
The motivation for this lint is documented as:
> A unit value cannot usefully be used anywhere. So binding one is kind of pointless.
with this example:
> ```rust
> let x = {
> 1;
> };
> ```
Sure, but the author would find this out via an unused_variable warning or from `x` not being the type that they need further down. If there ends up being a type error on `x`, clippy's advice isn't going to help get the code compiling because it can only run if the code already compiles.
changelog: Remove let_unit_value from default set of enabled lints
Fix update_lints
This fixes a bug in update_lints, where `internal` lints were not registered properly. This also cleans up some code. For example: The code generation functions no longer filter the lints the are given. This is now the task of the caller. This way, it is more obvious in the `replace_in_file` calls which lints will be included in which part of a file.
This also turns the lint modules private. There is no need for them to be public, since shared code should be in the utils module anyway.
And last but not least, this fixes the `register_lints` code generation, so also internal lints get registered.
changelog: none
useless Rc<Rc<T>>, Rc<Box<T>>, Rc<&T>, Box<&T>
refers to #2394
changelog: Add lints for Rc<Rc<T>> and Rc<Box<T>> and Rc<&T>, Box<&T>
this is based on top of another change #5310 so probably should go after that one.
Downgrade option_option to pedantic
Based on a search of my work codebase (\>500k lines) for `Option<Option<`, it looks like a bunch of reasonable uses to me. The documented motivation for this lint is:
> an optional optional value is logically the same thing as an optional value but has an unneeded extra level of wrapping
which seems a bit bogus in practice. For example a typical usage would look like:
```rust
let mut host: Option<String> = None;
let mut port: Option<i32> = None;
let mut payload: Option<Option<String>> = None;
for each field {
match field.name {
"host" => host = Some(...),
"port" => port = Some(...),
"payload" => payload = Some(...), // can be null or string
_ => return error,
}
}
let host = host.ok_or(...)?;
let port = port.ok_or(...)?;
let payload = payload.ok_or(...)?;
do_thing(host, port, payload)
```
This lint seems to fit right in with the pedantic group; I don't think linting on occurrences of `Option<Option<T>>` by default is justified.
---
changelog: Remove option_option from default set of enabled lints
Lint unnamed address comparisons
Functions and vtables have an insignificant address. Attempts to compare such addresses will lead to very surprising behaviour. For example: addresses of different functions could compare equal; two trait object pointers representing the same object and the same type could be unequal.
Lint against unnamed address comparisons to avoid issues like those in rust-lang/rust#69757 and rust-lang/rust#54685.
changelog: New lints: [`fn_address_comparisons`] [#5294](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/5294), [`vtable_address_comparisons`] [#5294](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/5294)
`unused_self` false positive
fixes#5351
Remove the for loop in `unused_self` so that lint enabled for one method doesn't trigger on another method.
changelog: Fix false positive in `unused_self` around lint gates on impl items
Move verbose_file_reads to restriction
cc #5368
Using `File::read` instead of `fs::read_to_end` does make sense in multiple cases, so this lint is rather restriction, than complexity
changelog: Move [`verbose_file_reads`] to restriction
