Check `.fixed` paths' existence in `run_ui`
This PR adds a test to check that there exists a `.fixed` file for every `.stderr` file in `tests/ui` that mentions a `MachineApplicable` lint. The test leverages `compiletest-rs`'s `rustfix_coverage` option.
I tried to add `.fixed` files where they appeared to be missing. However, 38 exceptional `.rs` files remain. Several of those include comments indicating that they are exceptions, though not all do. Apologies, as I have not tried to associate the 38 files with GH issues. (I think that would be a lot of work, and I worry about linking the wrong issue.)
changelog: none
Fix `empty_line_after_outer_attribute` false positive
This PR fixes a false positive in `empty_line_after_outer_attribute`.
Here is a minimal example that trigger the FP:
```rust
#[derive(clap::Parser)]
#[clap(after_help = "This ia a help message.
You're welcome.
")]
pub struct Args;
```
changelog: PF: [`empty_line_after_outer_attribute`]: No longer lints empty lines in inner string values.
Introduce `allow-dbg-in-tests` config value
related to: Issue #8758, PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8838
changelog: Introduced `allow-dbg-in-tests` config value. [dbg_macro] does not allow `dbg!` in test code by default.
Only return `DefId`s to `Fn`-like definitions in `clippy_utils::fn_def_id`
Fixes#8850
in `returns.rs` `tcx.fn_sig` is called on the result of `fn_def_id`, which panics if the def is a `const`/`static`/etc rather than a functions definition
bc4d39e5fe/clippy_lints/src/returns.rs (L294-L303)
changelog: Fix ICE due to callable `static`/`const`s
feat(lint): impl lint about use first() instead of get(0)
close#8851
This PR adds new lint about considering replacing .get(0) with .first().
Thank you in advance.
changelog: adds new lint [`get_first`] to consider replacing .get(0) with .first()
`get_last_with_len`: lint `VecDeque` and any deref to slice
changelog: [`get_last_with_len`]: lint `VecDeque` and any deref to slice
Previously only `Vec`s were linted, this will now catch any usages on slices, arrays, etc. It also suggests `.back()` for `VecDeque`s
Also moves the lint into `methods/`
Add some testcases for recent rustfix update
changelog: none
This adds a testcase for a bugfix that has been fixed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfix/tree/v0.6.1
`rustfix` is pulled in by `compiletest_rs`. So to test that the correct rustfix version is used, I added one (and a half) testcase.
I tried to add a testcase for #8734 as well, but interesting enough the rustfix is wrong:
```diff
fn issue8734() {
let _ = [0u8, 1, 2, 3]
.into_iter()
- .and_then(|n| match n {
+ .flat_map(|n| match n {
+ 1 => [n
+ .saturating_add(1)
1 => [n
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)
.saturating_add(1)],
n => [n],
});
}
```
this needs some investigation and then this testcase needs to be enabled by commenting it out
closes#8878
related to #8734
`identity_op`: add parenthesis to suggestions where required
changelog: [`identity_op`]: add parenthesis to suggestions where required
Follow up to #8730, wraps the cases we can't lint as-is in parenthesis rather than ignoring them
Catches a couple new FPs with mixed operator precedences and `as` casts
```rust
// such as
0 + { a } * 2;
0 + a as usize;
```
The suggestions are now applied using `span_lint_and_sugg` rather than appearing in just the message and have a `run-rustfix` test
Fix imports for "Checking if a type defines a specific method"
The import of `clippy_utils::is_type_diagnostic_item` would cause this error:
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `clippy_utils::is_type_diagnostic_item
```
changelog: none
The import of `clippy_utils::is_type_diagnostic_item` would cause this
error:
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `clippy_utils::is_type_diagnostic_item
```
Rustup
`@rust-lang/clippy,` `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo.` Could someone review this? It should be pretty straight forward since it's just a sync. I think it's also fine if either one of `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo` approves this, as these are usually not reviewed. I just want to make sure that I didn't break something obvious 🙃
It should be enough to look at the merge commit 🙃
changelog: none
changelog: move [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`] to `suspicious`
