Extend `needless_borrowed_reference` to structs and tuples, ignore _
changelog: [`needless_borrowed_reference`]: Lint struct and tuple patterns, and patterns containing `_`
Now lints patterns like
```rust
&(ref a, ref b)
&Tuple(ref a, ref b)
&Struct { ref a, ref b }
&(ref a, _)
```
Fix typo in `expect_used` and `unwrap_used` warning messages
"\`an Option\`" -> "an \`Option\`" and "\`a Result\`" -> "a \`Result\`".
changelog: fix typo in `expect_used` and `unwrap_used` warning messages
`never_loop`: don't emit AlwaysBreaks if it targets a block
ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9837#issuecomment-1312788194
The previous fix (#9837) was too simple and ignored all break commands inside a labelled block, regardless of whether their destination was a labelled block or a loop. This fix tracks all the labelled blocks in scope to ensure that only breaks targeting loops are considered.
changelog: [`never_loop`]: prevent false negatives from `breaks` nested in labelled blocks
Avoid generating files via doctest
When we run `cargo test` in `clippy_lints` directory, it will generate [`foo.txt`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/blob/master/clippy_lints/foo.txt) in the directory.
In order to avoid that, this PR adds `no_run` to rustdoc which contains `File::create`.
changelog: none
When we run `cargo test` in `clippy_lints` directory, it will generate
`foo.txt` in the directory.
In order to avoid that, add `no_run` to rustdoc which contains
`File::create`.
Introduced an ignored_ids parameter.
Takes O(n^2) time in the worst case.
Can be changed to collect block ids in first phase,
and then filter with binary search in second.
feat: lint unchecked subtraction of a 'Duration' from an 'Instant'
Hello all, I tried to tackle the open issue #9371 and this is what I came up with.
I have a difficulty currently - some tests are failing:
```
failures:
[ui] ui/manual_instant_elapsed.rs
```
The `manual_instant_elapsed` is failing because of `Instant::now() - duration` test, this now gets also picked by `unchecked_duration_subtraction` lint.
What is the correct way to proceed in this case? Simply update the `.stderr` file for `manual_instant_elapsed` lint?
changelog: [`unchecked_duration_subtraction`]: Add lint for unchecked subtraction of a `Duration` from an `Instant`.
fixes#9371
Fix `vec-box-size-threshold` off-by-one error
The docs for `vec-box-size-threshold` say "The size of the boxed type in bytes, where boxing in a `Vec` is allowed", but previously a boxed type of exactly that size wasn't allowed in `Vec`.
changelog: [`vec_box`]: Fix off-by-one error for `vec-box-size-threshold` configuration.
Make it clear that `or_fun_call` can be a false-positive
Also move it to nursery so that the false-positives can be dealt with.
CC #8574
changelog: [`or_fun_call`]: Mention false-positives, move to nursery.
Add `unnecessary_safety_doc` lint
changelog: [`unnecessary_safety_doc`]: Add `unnecessary_safety_doc` lint
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6880
This lint does not trigger for private functions, just like `missing_safety_docs`. Reason for that was implementation simplicity and because I figured asking first would make more sense, so if it should trigger for private functions as well let me know and I'll fix that up as well.
[`fn_params_excessive_bools`] Make it possible to allow the lint at the method level
changelog: FP: [`fn_params_excessive_bools`]: `#[allow]` now works on methods
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9687
Tested without committing but `#[allow]`ing now works. Also rewrote the lint to be a late lint while at it :)
r? `@xFrednet`
Fix is_async_fn to check FnKind::Method
This is a follow-up PR of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9828 to support also async methods.
changelog: [`cognitive_complexity`] support async method
r? `@Alexendoo`
Make `bool_to_int_with_if` a pedantic lint
In all the cases I've observed, it did not make the code clearer. Using bools as integer is frowned upon in some languages, in others it's simply not possible.
You can find comments on the original pull request #8131 that agree with this point of view.
changelog: [`bool_to_int_with_if`]: Change the categorization to pedantic
In all the cases I've observed, it did not make the code clearer. Using
bools as integer is frowned upon in some languages, in others it's
simply not possible.
You can find comments on the original pull request #8131 that agree with
this point of view.
