Improvement for `equatable_if_let`
fixes#9221
This PR makes sure that enums or structs not implementing `PartialEq` trait but still using the `if let` patterns can be linted to be rewritten with `matches!`.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[ ] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[ ] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[ ] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
---
changelog: Improve [`equatable_if_let`] with additional `matches!` suggestions.
fix: support `map_or` for `or_fun_call` lint
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8993
The methods defined in `KNOW_TYPES`, except for `map_or`, accepts only one argument, so the matching `if let [arg] = args` works only for these methods.
This PR adds `rest_arg` argument to `check_general_case` method and handling of cases with two arguments to support `map_or`.
changelog: `or_fun_call` support `map_or`
* add `rest_arg` to pass second argument from `map_or(U, F)`
* extract some procedures into closure
* add `rest_arg` to pass second argument from `map_or(U, F)`
* extract some procedures into closure
refac: rename rest_arg/second_arg
refac: organize function argument order
* put `second_arg` next to `arg` argument
Mark `let_underscore_lock` and `let_underscore_drop` as uplifted
Here I've renamed both the uplifted lints, however rustc's `let_underscore_lock` is slightly less capable than the clippy lint as it doesn't catch `parking_lot` types or `Result<Guard, ..>`, should we still remove it? The `Result` change looks like it was unintentional to me so that could probably be fixed upstream
changelog: Uplift [`let_underscore_drop`] to rustc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97739
changelog: Remove overlap between rustc's `let_underscore_lock` and Clippy's [`let_underscore_lock`]
r? `@flip1995`
fix `box-default` ignoring trait objects' types
This avoids removing the turbofish when the `Box` type is a `dyn` or `impl _`.
This fixes#9621.
---
changelog: none
Add `unused_format_specs` lint
Currently catches two cases:
An empty precision specifier:
```rust
// the same as {}
println!("{:.}", x);
```
And using formatting specs on `format_args!()`:
```rust
// prints `x.`, not `x .`
println("{:5}.", format_args!("x"));
```
changelog: new lint: [`unused_format_specs`]
[`unnecessary_cast`] Do not lint negative hexadecimal literals when cast as floats
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9603
changelog: [`unnecessary_cast`] Do not lint negative hexadecimal literals when cast as floats
[`zero_prefixed_literal`] Do not advise to use octal form if not possible
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9651
changelog: [`zero_prefixed_literal`] Do not advise to use octal form if not possible
Add new lint `partial_pub_fields`
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <zty0826@gmail.com>
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: `partial_pub_fields`: new lint to disallow partial fields of a struct be pub
Resolve#9604
Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules for `from_over_into`
Adds a machine applicable suggestion to convert the `Into` impl into a `From` one to `from_over_into`
Also adds a note explaining that `impl From<Local> for Foreign` is fine if the `Into` type is foreign
Closes#7444
Addresses half of #9638
changelog: [`from_over_into`] Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules
Fix edition revision ui tests
#9605 had me wondering how the edition revision tests were working for `manual_assert` but not for `@nyurik,` but it turns out `manual_assert`'s tests weren't working either. I checked how `rust-lang/rust` does it and apparently it comes down to whitespace, `//[rev] edition:X` works 😬
Removes the revisions from `match_wild_err_arm` as I couldn't find any edition dependant behaviour there
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: none
add tests in `implicit_saturating_sub` lint
This adds more tests to the `implicit_saturating_sub` lint to rule out certain false positives that have appeared in the past.
Now with those false positives out of the equation, we can move the lint to `style`.
---
changelog: promote [`implicit-saturating-sub`] to the `style` category
Fix to_string_in_format_args in parens
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
Fixes#9540
changelog: [`to_string_in_format_args`]: fix incorrect fix when value is enclosed in parenthesis
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
fixes#9608
changelog: Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
Uplift `clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles` lint into rustc
This PR, as the title suggests, uplifts [`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`] lint into rustc. This lint warns for code like this:
```rust
for _ in Some(1) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, ()>(1) {}
```
i.e. directly iterating over `Option` and `Result` using `for` loop.
There are a number of suggestions that this PR adds (on top of what clippy suggested):
1. If the argument (? is there a better name for that expression) of a `for` loop is a `.next()` call, then we can suggest removing it (or rather replacing with `.by_ref()` to allow iterator being used later)
```rust
for _ in iter.next() {}
// turns into
for _ in iter.by_ref() {}
```
2. (otherwise) We can suggest using `while let`, this is useful for non-iterator, iterator-like things like [async] channels
```rust
for _ in rx.recv() {}
// turns into
while let Some(_) = rx.recv() {}
```
3. If the argument type is `Result<impl IntoIterator, _>` and the body has a `Result<_, _>` type, we can suggest using `?`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
for _ in f()? {}
```
4. To preserve the original behavior and clear intent, we can suggest using `if let`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
if let Some(_) = f() {}
```
(P.S. `Some` and `Ok` are interchangeable depending on the type)
I still feel that the lint wording/look is somewhat off, so I'll be happy to hear suggestions (on how to improve suggestions :D)!
Resolves#99272
[`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#for_loops_over_fallibles
