[`many_single_char_names`]: Deduplicate diagnostics
Relates to #12379
Fix `many_single_char_names` lint so that it doesn't emit diagnostics when the current level of the scope doesn't contain any single character name.
```rust
let (a, b, c, d): (i32, i32, i32, i32);
match 1 {
1 => (),
e => {},
}
```
produced the exact same MANY_SINGLE_CHAR_NAMES diagnostic at each of the Arm `e => {}` and the Block `{}`.
---
changelog: [`many_single_char_names`]: Fix duplicate diagnostics
Fix `unnecessary_to_owned` interaction with macro expansion
fixes#12821
In the case of an unnecessary `.iter().cloned()`, the lint `unnecessary_to_owned` might suggest to remove the `&` from references without checking if such references are inside a macro expansion. This can lead to unexpected behavior or even broken code if the lint suggestion is applied blindly. See issue #12821 for an example.
This PR checks if such references are inside macro expansions and skips this part of the lint suggestion in these cases.
changelog: [`unnecessary_to_owned`]: Don't suggest to remove `&` inside macro expansion
`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`: Trigger lint only if lifetime allows early significant drop
I want to argue that the following code snippet should not trigger `significant_drop_in_scrutinee` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8987). The iterator holds a reference to the locked data, so it is expected that the mutex guard must be alive until the entire loop is finished.
```rust
use std::sync::Mutex;
fn main() {
let mutex_vec = Mutex::new(vec![1, 2, 3]);
for number in mutex_vec.lock().unwrap().iter() {
dbg!(number);
}
}
```
However, the lint should be triggered when we clone the vector. In this case, the iterator does not hold any reference to the locked data.
```diff
- for number in mutex_vec.lock().unwrap().iter() {
+ for number in mutex_vec.lock().unwrap().clone().iter() {
```
Unfortunately, it seems that regions on the types of local variables are mostly erased (`ReErased`) in the late lint pass. So it is hard to tell if the final expression has a lifetime relevant to the value with a significant drop.
In this PR, I try to make a best-effort guess based on the function signatures. To avoid false positives, no lint is issued if the result is uncertain. I'm not sure if this is acceptable or not, so any comments are welcome.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8987
changelog: [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`]: Trigger lint only if lifetime allows early significant drop.
r? `@flip1995`
feat: `Quick Fix` for `bare URLs`
closes#12835.
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`clippy::doc_markdown`]: `Quick Fix` for `bare URLs`
fulfill expectations in `check_partial_eq_without_eq`
This is a followup to #12804, fixing a similar issue for `derive_partial_eq_without_eq` by using `span_lint_hir_and_then` instead of `span_lint_and_sugg`.
Additionally tests for both `#[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)]` and `#[expect(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)]` are added.
changelog:[`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`]: fulfill expectations
For restriction lints, replace “Why is this bad?” with “Why restrict this?”
The `restriction` group contains many lints which are not about necessarily “bad” things, but style choices — perhaps even style choices which contradict conventional Rust style — or are otherwise very situational. This results in silly wording like “Why is this bad? It isn't, but ...”, which I’ve seen confuse and distress a newcomer at least once.
To improve this situation, this PR replaces the “Why is this bad?” section heading with “Why restrict this?”, for most, but not all, restriction lints. I left alone the ones whose placement in the restriction group is more incidental.
In order to make this make sense, I had to remove the “It isn't, but” texts from the contents of the sections. Sometimes further changes were needed, or there were obvious fixes to make, and I went ahead and made those changes without attempting to split them into another commit, even though many of them are not strictly necessary for the “Why restrict this?” project; it seemed to me that it was more valuable to grab the low-hanging fruit than to be careful about it.
changelog: rephrased the documentation of `restriction` lints for clarity about their nature
The `restriction` group contains many lints which are not about
necessarily “bad” things, but style choices — perhaps even style choices
which contradict conventional Rust style — or are otherwise very
situational. This results in silly wording like “Why is this bad?
It isn't, but ...”, which I’ve seen confuse a newcomer at least once.
To improve this situation, this commit replaces the “Why is this bad?”
section heading with “Why restrict this?”, for most, but not all,
restriction lints. I left alone the ones whose placement in the
restriction group is more incidental.
In order to make this make sense, I had to remove the “It isn't, but”
texts from the contents of the sections. Sometimes further changes
were needed, or there were obvious fixes to make, and I went ahead
and made those changes without attempting to split them into another
commit, even though many of them are not strictly necessary for the
“Why restrict this?” project.
Rephrase and expand `empty_enum` documentation.
* Remove incorrect claim that “wrappers around it are the conventional way to define an uninhabited type”.
* Discuss why one would use `!`, a newtype struct, or keep the enum.
* Add links to relevant documentation.
Before writing this change, I asked the community via [IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/idiomatic-definition-of-uninhabited-never-newtypes/20877) and [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Never.20type.20wrappers.20.2F.20defining.20uninhabited.20newtypes) for feedback. The broad consensus seemed to me to be that in a world where both `never_type` and `min_exhaustive_patterns` are stable and therefore available for general use, we _might_ want to `!` or newtypes of it — but it's certainly not “conventional” _yet._ Therefore, I've removed “conventional” and added a discussion of the pros and cons of different choices.
changelog: [`empty_enum`]: expanded documentation
* Remove incorrect claim that “wrappers around it are the conventional
way to define an uninhabited type”.
* Discuss why one would use `!`, a newtype struct, or keep the enum.
* Add links to relevant documentation.
fulfill expectations in `check_unsafe_derive_deserialize`
The utility function `clippy_utils::fulfill_or_allowed` is not used because using it would require to move the check for allowed after the check iterating over all inherent impls of the type, doing possibly unnecessary work.
Instead, `is_lint_allowed` is called as before, but additionally, once certain that the lint should be emitted, `span_lint_hir_and_then` is called instead of `span_lint_and_help` to also fulfill expectations.
Note: as this is my first contribution, please feel free to nitpick or request changes. I am happy to adjust the implementation.
fixes: #12802
changelog: fulfill expectations in [`unsafe_derive_deserialize`]
Add new lint `while_float`
This PR adds a nursery lint that checks for while loops comparing floating point values.
changelog:
```
changelog: [`while_float`]: Checks for while loops comparing floating point values.
```
Fixes#758
doc_lazy_continuation: do not warn on End events
```
changelog: none
```
This avoids event spans that would otherwise cause crashes, since an
End's span covers the range of the tag (which will be earlier than the
line break within the tag).
This avoids event spans that would otherwise cause crashes, since an
End's span covers the range of the tag (which will be earlier than the
line break within the tag).
Add configuration option for ignoring `panic!()` in tests
```
changelog: [`panic`]: Now can be disabled in tests with the `allow-panic-in-tests` option
```
I often find myself using `panic!(…)` in tests a lot, where I often do something like:
```rust
match enam {
Enam::A => …,
Enam::B => …,
_ => panic!("This should not happen at all."),
}
```
I think this patch should go nicely with already existing `allow-unwrap-in-tests` and `allow-expect-in-tests`.
Manually set library paths in .github/driver.sh
Fixes https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/Windows.20CI.20failing
Rustup 1.27.1 no longer adds `[SYSROOT]/bin` to `PATH` by default - https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/3825. This is fine for the packaged binaries since windows loads `dll`s from the folder the executable is in, but our built one is in a different folder
There's an environment variable to get the old behaviour back, but as it's deprecated and not much code I think returning to setting it manually is fine
changelog: none
The utility function `clippy_utils::fulfill_or_allowed` is not used because
using it would require to move the check for allowed after the check
iterating over all inherent impls of the type, doing possibly
unnecessary work.
Instead, `is_lint_allowed` is called as before, but additionally, once
certain that the lint should be emitted, `span_lint_hir_and_then` is called
instead of `span_lint_and_help` to also fulfill expectations.
fixes: #12802
changelog: fulfill expectations in `check_unsafe_derive_deserialize`
make sure the msrv for `const_raw_ptr_deref` is met when linting [`missing_const_for_fn`]
fixes: #8864
---
changelog: make sure the msrv for `const_ptr_deref` is met when linting [`missing_const_for_fn`]
less aggressive needless_borrows_for_generic_args
Current implementation looks for significant drops, that can change the behavior, but that's not enough - value might not have a `Drop` itself but one of its children might have it.
A good example is passing a reference to `PathBuf` to `std::fs::File::open`. There's no benefits to pass `PathBuf` by value, but since `clippy` can't see `Drop` on `Vec` several layers down it complains forcing pass by value and making it impossible to use the same name later.
New implementation only looks at copy values or values created in place so existing variable will never be moved but things that take a string reference created and value is created inplace `&"".to_owned()` will make it to suggest to use `"".to_owned()` still.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12454
changelog: [`needless_borrows_for_generic_args`]: avoid moving variables
`assigning_clones`: move to `pedantic` so it is allow by default
In a nutshell, the `assigning_clones` lint suggests to make your code less readable for a small performance gain. See #12778 for more motivation.
fixes#12778
changelog: [`assigning_clones`]: move to the `pedantic` group
improve [`match_same_arms`] messages, enable rustfix test
closes: #9251
don't worry about the commit size, most of them are generated
---
changelog: improve [`match_same_arms`] lint messages
