Clippy Book Chapter Updates Reborn: Refresh Lint Configuration's looks
This PR modernizes and clears up some confusion with the "Lint Configuration Options" chapter from the book.
### Changes
- **Remove 'Option - Default Value" table**
- Why was it even there?
- It shouldn't be the first thing an user sees when they enter the chapter. It's clunky, ugly and not useful. The default values for configs are stated in a per-config basis if needed.
- **Add a simple description of what the chapter contains, and the scheme of each configuration option**
- **Minor formatting, mainly adding code fragments to code text**
- It seemed weird and jarring not having back-ticks on text like "arithmetic_side_effects".
- Improves readability and separation between configs.
- **Separate a little bit the Affected Lints list + "Affected lists" message**
- Not having something indicating that the list is about the lints that use the configuration option is confusing.
- It isn't as important as the description and example. Therefore should be separated a little bit imo
---
This is an independent effort from #10597, but as it's still a Book Chapter Update, I thought it would be cool to include it here. I'm going to keep the reviewing process for this PR to rustbot's desires.
[Rendered](https://github.com/blyxyas/rust-clippy/blob/book-lint_config/book/src/lint_configuration.md)
[Current](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/blob/master/book/src/lint_configuration.md)
changelog: Refresh styling from the "Lint Configuration Options" book chapter.
Update *Current stable* text in `CHANGELOG.md`
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
the new version was released,
and our changelog too
---
changelog: none
add checking for cfg(features = ...)
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`maybe_misused_cfg`]: check if `#[cfg(feature = "...")]` misused as `#[cfg(features = "...")]`
I've found that there is no indication when `#[cfg(features = "...")]` is used incorrectly, which can easily make mistakes hard to spot. When I searched for this code on github, I also found many misuse cases([link](https://github.com/search?q=%23%5Bcfg%28features+language%3ARust&type=code)).
PS: This clippy name is just a temporary name, it can be replaced with a better name.
Add spans to `clippy.toml` error messages
Adds spans to errors and warnings encountered when parsing `clippy.toml`.
changelog: Errors and warnings generated when parsing `clippy.toml` now point to the location in the TOML file the error/warning occurred.
Explain which paths clippy searches for configuration in docs
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9921.
Adds information on where to place the configuration files, it may be a bit verbose. Also added a comment to the section of the code where the search happens, to hopefully prevent changing that without updating the docs.
changelog: Make documentation about where to place configuration files clearer.
new lint: `missing_fields_in_debug`
Fixes#10429
This PR adds a new lint that looks for manual `Debug` implementations that do not "use" all of the fields.
This often happens when adding a new field to a struct.
It also acts as a style lint in case leaving out a field was intentional. In that case, it's preferred to use [`DebugStruct::finish_non_exhaustive`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/fmt/struct.DebugStruct.html#method.finish_non_exhaustive), which indicates that there are more fields that were explicitly not shown.
```
changelog: [`missing_fields_in_debug`]: missing fields in manual `Debug` implementation
```
move some strings into consts, more tests
s/missing_field_in_debug/missing_fields_in_debug
dont trigger in macro expansions
make dogfood tests happy
minor cleanups
replace HashSet with FxHashSet
replace match_def_path with match_type
if_chain -> let chains, fix markdown, allow newtype pattern
fmt
consider string literal in `.field()` calls as used
don't intern defined symbol, remove mentions of 'debug_tuple'
special-case PD, account for field access through `Deref`
Remove lint name and category fields from the new lint issue form
changelog: none
Picking a name/category is something the implementers/reviewers tend to cover anyway, I think asking people to come up with it at the time of their suggestion is more of a barrier than it's worth
Inspired by the mention in #10849
