* Added expression check for shared_code_in_if_blocks
* Finishing touches for the shared_code_in_if_blocks lint
* Applying PR suggestions
* Update lints yay
* Moved test into subfolder
Lint: filter(Option::is_some).map(Option::unwrap)
Fixes#6061
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog:
* add new lint for filter(Option::is_some).map(Option::unwrap)
First Rust PR, so I'm sure I've violated some idioms. Happy to change anything.
I'm getting one test failure locally -- a stderr diff for `compile_test`. I'm having a hard time seeing how I could be causing it, so I'm tentatively opening this in the hopes that it's an artifact of my local setup against `rustc`. Hoping it can at least still be reviewed in the meantime.
I'm gathering that since this is a method lint, and `.filter(...).map(...)` is already checked, the means of implementation needs to be a little different, so I didn't exactly follow the setup boilerplate. My way of checking for method calls seems a little too direct (ie, "is the second element of the expression literally the path for `Option::is_some`?"), but it seems like that's how some other lints work, so I went with it. I'm assuming we're not concerned about, eg, closures that just end up equivalent to `Option::is_some` by eta reduction.
Lint on `_.clone().method()` when method takes self by value
Set applicability correctly
Correct suggestion when the cloned value is a macro call. e.g. `m!(x).clone()`
Don't lint when not using the `Clone` trait
Ignore str::len() in or_fun_call lint.
changelog: Changed `or_fun_call` to ignore `str::len`, in the same way it ignores `slice::len` and `array::len`
Closes#6943
Refactor lints in methods module
This PR refactors methods lints other than the lints I refactored in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/6826 and moves some functions to methods/utils.rs.
Basically, I follow the instruction described in #6680.
**For ease of review, I refactored step by step, keeping each commit small.**
closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6886
cc: `@phansch,` `@flip1995,` `@Y-Nak`
changelog: Move lints in methods module to their own modules and some function to methods/utils.rs.
wrong_self_convention: fix lint in case of `to_*_mut` method
fixes#6758
changelog: wrong_self_convention: fix lint in case of `to_*_mut` method. When a method starts with `to_` and ends with `_mut`, clippy expects a `&mut self` parameter, otherwise `&self`.
Any feedback is welcome. I was also thinking if shouldn't we treat `to_` the same way as `as_`. Namely to accept `self` taken: `&self` or `&mut self`.
or_fun_call: fix suggestion for `or_insert(vec![])`
fixes#6748
changelog: or_fun_call: fix suggestion for `or_insert(vec![])` on `std::collections::hash_map::Entry` or `std::collections::btree_map::Entry`
Applies for `std::collections::hash_map::Entry` and `std::collections::btree_map::Entry`
Example:
Previously, for the following code:
`let _ = hash_map.entry("test".to_owned()).or_insert(vec![]);`
clippy would suggest to use:
`or_insert_with(vec![])`, which causes a compiler error (E0277).
Now clippy suggests:
`or_insert_with(Vec::new)`
Fix suggestions that need parens in `from_iter_instead_of_collect` lint
Fixes broken suggestions that need parens (i.e.: range)
Fixes: #6648
changelog: none
This renames the variants in HIR UnOp from
enum UnOp {
UnDeref,
UnNot,
UnNeg,
}
to
enum UnOp {
Deref,
Not,
Neg,
}
Motivations:
- This is more consistent with the rest of the code base where most enum
variants don't have a prefix.
- These variants are never used without the `UnOp` prefix so the extra
`Un` prefix doesn't help with readability. E.g. we don't have any
`UnDeref`s in the code, we only have `UnOp::UnDeref`.
- MIR `UnOp` type variants don't have a prefix so this is more
consistent with MIR types.
- "un" prefix reads like "inverse" or "reverse", so as a beginner in
rustc code base when I see "UnDeref" what comes to my mind is
something like "&*" instead of just "*".
Add new lint `filter_map_identity`
<!--
Thank you for making Clippy better!
We're collecting our changelog from pull request descriptions.
If your PR only includes internal changes, you can just write
`changelog: none`. Otherwise, please write a short comment
explaining your change.
If your PR fixes an issue, you can add "fixes #issue_number" into this
PR description. This way the issue will be automatically closed when
your PR is merged.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
Note that you can skip the above if you are just opening a WIP PR in
order to get feedback.
Delete this line and everything above before opening your PR.
-->
This commit adds a new lint named filter_map_identity.
This lint is the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for the usage of `filter_map`.
---
Closes#6643
changelog: Added a new lint: `filter_map_identity`
This commit adds a new lint named `filter_map_identity`. This lint is
the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for `filter_map`.
Closes#6643
New Lint: inspect_then_for_each
**Work In Progress**
This PR addresses [Issue 5209](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5209) and adds a new lint called `inspect_then_for_each`.
Current seek some guidance.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
---
changelog: Add [`inspect_for_each`] lint for the use of `inspect().for_each()` on `Iterators`.
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
Lint also in trait def for `wrong_self_convention`
Extends `wrong_self_convention` to lint also in trait definition.
By the way, I think the `wrong_pub_self_convention` [example](dd826b4626/clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs (L197)) is misleading.
On [playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=32615ab3f6009e7e42cc3754be0ca17f), it fires `wrong_self_convention`, so the example (or the lint maybe?) needs to be reworked.
The difference with `wrong_self_convention` [example](dd826b4626/clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs (L172)) is mainly the `pub` keyword on the method `as_str`, but the lint doesn't use the function visibility as condition to choose which lint to fire (in fact it uses the visibility of the impl item).
fixes: #6307
changelog: Lint `wrong_self_convention` lint in trait def also
