Rename thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const to missing_const_for_thread_local
Close#12934
As discussed at #12934 name `thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const` sounds against convention for other lints which describe the issue/wrong code but not suggestion and it is quite long. The new name take example from existing lint `missing_const_for_fn`
changelog: `thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const` : Rename to [`missing_const_for_thread_local`]
feat: add cfg_not_test lint
<!--
- \[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`
- \[ ] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
-->
Fixes#11234
changelog: new lint: [`cfg_not_test`]
I don't know whether to lint only the `attr` or also the item associated to it. I guess this would mean putting the check in another place than `check_attribute` but I can't find a way to get the associated item to the attribute.
Also, I'm not sure how to document this lint, I feel like my explications are bad.
Remove `is_in_test_module_or_function`
Uses are replaced with `is_in_test` for consistency with other lints and to simplify the implementation of the lints. This means the module name is no longer checked, but that was a horrible hack from a time when late passes couldn't see `#[cfg(..)]` attributes.
changelog: none
[`unnecessary_to_owned`]: catch `to_owned` on byte slice to create temporary `&str`
Closes#11648
Detects the pattern `&String::from_utf8(bytes.to_vec()).unwrap()` and suggests `core::str::from_utf8(bytes).unwrap()`, which avoids the unnecessary intermediate allocation.
I decided to put this in the existing `unnecessary_to_owned` lint (rather than creating a new lint) for a few reasons:
- we get to use some of its logic (for example, recognizing any of the functions in the `to_owned` family, e.g. `to_vec`)
- the actual inefficient operation that can be avoided here is the call to `.to_vec()`, so this is in a way similar to the other cases caught by `unnecessary_to_owned`, just through a bunch of type conversions
- we can make this more "generic" later and catch other cases, so imo it's best not to tie this lint specifically to the `String` type
changelog: [`unnecessary_to_owned`]: catch `&String::from_utf8(bytes.to_vec()).unwrap()` and suggest `core::str::from_utf8(bytes).unwrap()`
[`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix suggestions for fn with abi that requires `const_extern_fn` feature
closes: #13008
---
changelog: [`missing_const_for_fn`]: fix suggestions for fn with abi that requires `const_extern_fn` feature.
Add new lint for byte char slices
This patch adds a new lint that checks for potentially harder to read byte char slices: `&[b'a', b'b']` and suggests to replace them with the easier to read `b"ab"` form.
Fixes#10147
---
changelog: new lint: [`byte_char_slices`]
[#10155](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10155)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
This patch adds a new lint that checks for potentially harder to read
byte char slices: `&[b'a', b'b']` and suggests to replace them with the
easier to read `b"ab"` form.
Signed-Off-By: Marcel Müller <m.mueller@ifm.com>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Beyer <matthias.beyer@ifm.com>
Use iterator to skip validation
Signed-off-by: Marcel Müller <m.mueller@ifm.com>
Suggested-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
Convert quote escapes to proper form
Signed-off-by: Marcel Müller <m.mueller@ifm.com>
Add more convertable test cases
Signed-off-by: Marcel Müller <m.mueller@ifm.com>
Add new lint `hashset_insert_after_contains`
This PR closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11103.
This is my first PR creating a new lint (and the second attempt of creating this PR, the first one I was not able to continue because of personal reasons). Thanks for the patience :)
The idea of the lint is to find insert in hashmanps inside if staments that are checking if the hashmap contains the same value that is being inserted. This is not necessary since you could simply call the insert and check for the bool returned if you still need the if statement.
changelog: new lint: [hashset_insert_after_contains]
Fix some false-positive cases of `explicit_auto_deref`
changelog: [`explicit_auto_deref`] Fix some false-positive cases
Fix part of #9841
Fix #12969
r? xFrednet
Honor `avoid-breaking-exported-api` in `needless_pass_by_ref_mut`
Until now, the lint only emitted a warning, when breaking public API. Now it doesn't lint at all when the config value is not set to `false`, bringing it in line with the other lints using this config value.
Also ensures that this config value is documented in the lint.
changelog: none
(I don't think a changelog is necessary, since this lint is in `nursery`)
---
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11374
cc `@GuillaumeGomez`
Marking as draft: Does this lint even break public API? If I change a function signature from `fn foo(x: &mut T)` to `fn foo(x: &T)`, I can still call it with `foo(&mut x)`. The only "breaking" thing is that the `clippy::unnecessary_mut_passed` lint will complain that `&mut` at the callsite is not necessary, possibly trickling down to the crate user having to remote a `mut` from a variable. [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=058165a7663902e84af1d23e35c10d66).
Are there examples where this actually breaks public API, that I'm missing?
Until now, the lint only emitted a warning, when breaking public API. Now it
doesn't lint at all when the config value is not set to `false`, bringing it in
line with the other lints using this config value.
Also ensures that this config value is documented in the lint.
Fix#12964 - false positive with `into_iter_without_iter`
changelog: FP: `into_iter_without_iter`: No longer lints when the `iter` or `iter_mut` implementation is not within the first `impl` block
fixes#12964
---
I'm pretty new to this open-source thing, so hopefully I did everything right. Got a little annoyed this false positive was happening in my code and the issue was inactive for two weeks so I thought I'd fix it myself.
As an aside, maybe `iter.map(...).next()` could be linted against? I don't see that ever being preferred over `iter.next().map(...)`, and it could've prevented the bug here.
