[`into_iter_without_iter`]: walk up deref impl chain to find `iter` methods
Fixes#11635
changelog: [`into_iter_without_iter`]: walk up deref impl chain to find `iter` methods
Fix ice in `redundant_locals`
Fixes#11619
Rebinding over macro like the code below, idents will be different (`x#4` and `x#0` in that case).
```rust
fn reassign_in_macro() {
let x = 10;
macro_rules! mac {
($i:ident) => {
let mut x = x;
}
}
mac!(y);
}
```
It causes unwrapping `None`.
9554e477c2/clippy_lints/src/redundant_locals.rs (L88-L98)
changelog: ICE: [`redundant_locals`]: No longer lints rebinding over macro
Improve `redundant_locals` help message
Fixes#11625
AFAIK, `span_lint_and_help` points the beginning of spans when we pass multiple spans to the second argument, so This PR I also modified its help span and its message.
lint result of the given example in the issue will be:
```console
error: redundant redefinition of a binding `apple`
--> src/main.rs:5:5
|
5 | let apple = apple;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: `apple` is initially defined here
--> src/main.rs:4:9
|
4 | let apple = 42;
| ^^^^^
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#redundant_locals
```
I hope that this change might help reduce user confusion, but I'd appreciate alternative suggestions:)
changelog: [`redundant_locals`]: Now points at the rebinding of the variable
Fix `items_after_test_module` for non root modules, add applicable suggestion
Fixes#11050Fixes#11153
changelog: [`items_after_test_module`]: Now suggests a machine-applicable suggestion.
changelog: [`items:after_test_module`]: Also lints for non root modules
std_instead_of_core: avoid lint inside of proc-macro
- fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/10198
note: The lint for the reported `thiserror::Error` has been suppressed by [Don't lint unstable moves in std_instead_of_core](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9545/files#diff-2cb8a24429cf9d9898de901450d640115503a10454d692dddc6a073a299fbb7eR29) because `thiserror::Error` internally implements `std::error::Error for (derived struct)`.
changelog: [`std_intead_of_core`]: avoid linting inside proc-macro
I confirmed this change fixes the problem:
<details>
<summary>test result without the change</summary>
```console
error: used import from `std` instead of `core`
--> tests/ui/std_instead_of_core.rs:65:14
|
LL | #[derive(ImplStructWithStdDisplay)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: this error originates in the derive macro `ImplStructWithStdDisplay` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
</details>
Move `needless_pass_by_ref_mut`: `suspicious` -> `nursery`
[Related to [this Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/needless_pass_by_ref_mut.20isn't.20ready.20for.20stable)]
`needless_pass_by_ref_mut` has been released with some important bugs (notably having a lot of reported false positives and an ICE). So it may not be really ready for being in stable until these problems are solved. This PR changes the lint's category from `suspicious` to `nursery`, just that.
changelog: none
Don't lint `manual_non_exhaustive` when enum is `#[non_exhaustive]`
Fixes#11583
changelog: Fix [`manual_non_exhaustive`] false positive for unit enum variants when enum is explicitly `non_exhaustive`.
Partially outline code inside the panic! macro
This outlines code inside the panic! macro in some cases. This is split out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115562 to exclude changes to rustc.
There are cases where users create a unit variant for the purposes
of tracking the number of variants for an nonexhaustive enum.
We should check if an enum is explicitly marked as nonexhaustive
before reporting `manual_non_exhaustive` in these cases. Fixes#11583
new lint: `into_iter_without_iter`
Closes#9736 (part 2)
This implements the other lint that my earlier PR missed: given an `IntoIterator for &Type` impl, check that there exists an inherent `fn iter(&self)` method.
changelog: new lint: `into_iter_without_iter`
r? `@Jarcho` since you reviewed #11527 I figured it makes sense for you to review this as well?
