[`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
close#11357
----
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
- Rename them both `as_str`, which is the typical name for a function
that returns a `&str`. (`to_string` is appropriate for functions
returning `String` or maybe `Cow<'a, str>`.)
- Change `UnOp::as_str` from an associated function (weird!) to a
method.
- Avoid needless `self` dereferences.
Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not float
clippy::suboptimal_flops used to not check if the second parameter to f32/f64.mul_add() was float. Since the method is only defined to take `Self` as parameters, the suggestion was wrong.
Fixes#11831
changelog: [`suboptimal_float`]: Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not f32/f64
[`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
Fixes#11816
Not a new lint, just a very small improvement to the existing `ptr_arg` lint which would have caught the linked issue.
The problem was that the lint checks if a `Vec`-specific method was called, that is, if the receiver is `Vec<_>`.
This is the case for `len` and `is_empty`, however these methods also exist on slices so we can still lint there.
This logic exists in a different lint, so we can just reuse that here.
Interestingly, there was even a comment up top that explained what it should have been doing, but the logic for it just wasn't there?
changelog: [`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
<sub>Also, this is my 100th PR to clippy 🎉 </sub>
`manual_try_fold`: check that `fold` is really `Iterator::fold`
Fix#11876
changelog: [`manual_try_fold`]: suggest using `try_fold` only for `Iterator::fold` uses
Move `implied_bounds_in_impls` back to complexity
This lint was originally in the complexity category when I PR'd it. It was then moved to nursery by me due to a number of issues (a false positive, an invalid suggestion and an ICE), but that was probably an overreaction and all of the issues were fixed quickly after.
This is a useful lint imo and there hasn't been any issues with it in a few months, so I say we should give it another try and move it back to complexity.
I did a lintcheck run on the top 400 crates and all of them are legitimate, with 18 warnings. Most of them are from anstyle having a `impl Display + Copy + Clone` return type, or the bitvec crate with a return type like `impl Iterator + DoubleEndedIterator`.
changelog: Move [`implied_bounds_in_impls`] to `complexity` (Now warn-by-default)
[#11867](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11867)
Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
Fixes#10045.
For the following code:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.map_or(Err("error"), Ok);
```
It suggests to instead write:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.ok_or("error");
```
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
suggest alternatives to iterate an array of ranges
works towards #7125
changelog: [`single_element_loop`]: suggest better syntax when iterating over an array of a single range
`@thinkerdreamer` and myself worked on this issue during a workshop by `@llogiq` at the RustLab 2023 conference. It is our first contribution to clippy.
When iterating over an array of only one element, _which is a range_, our change suggests to replace the array with the contained range itself. Additionally, a hint is printed stating that the user probably intended to iterate over the range and not the array. If the single element in the array is not a range, the previous suggestion in the form of `let {pat_snip} = {prefix}{arg_snip};{block_str}`is used.
This change lints the array with the single range directly, so any prefixes or suffixes are covered as well.
Nit re `matches!` formatting
I think formatting `matches!` with `if` guards is [still unsupported](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/5547), which is probably why this was missed.
changelog: none
[`deprecated_semver`]: Allow `#[deprecated(since = "TBD")]`
"TBD" is allowed by rustdoc, saying that it will be deprecated in a future version. rustc will also not actually warn on it.
I found this while checking the rust-lang/rust with clippy.
changelog: [`deprecated_semver`]: allow using `since = "TBD"`
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: work with bodies instead of blocks separately
Fixes#11856
Before this change, this lint would check blocks independently of each other, which means that it misses `assert!()`s from parent blocks.
```rs
// check_block
assert!(x.len() > 1);
{
// check_block
// no assert here
let _ = x[0] + x[1];
}
```
This PR changes it to work with bodies rather than individual blocks. That means that a function will be checked in one go and we can remember if an `assert!` occurred anywhere.
Eventually it would be nice to have a more control flow-aware analysis, possibly by rewriting it as a MIR lint, but that's more complicated and I wanted this fixed first.
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept `assert!`s from parent blocks
Fix iter_kv_map false positive into_keys and into_values suggestion
fixes: #11752
changelog: [`iter_kv_map`]: fix false positive: Don't suggest `into_keys()` and `into_values()` if the MSRV is to low
[`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if never type is used for coercion
Fixes#11616
When we have something like
```rs
let _x: String = {
return Err(())?;
};
```
we shouldn't suggest removing the `return` because the `!`-ness of `return` is used to coerce the enclosing block to some other type. That will lead to a typeck error without a diverging expression like `return`.
changelog: [`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if `return`s never typed-ness is used for coercion
Split `doc.rs` up into a subdirectory
So, first, sorry for the bad diff. 😅
In #11798, `@flip1995` suggested splitting `doc.rs` up, much like how we have the `methods/`, `matches/`, `types/` subdirectories.
I agree with this, the file is getting bigger as we add more and more doc lints that it makes sense to do this refactoring.
This is purely an internal change that moves things around a bit.
(**EDIT:** depending on the outcome of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11801#issuecomment-1816715615 , this may change the lint group name from `doc_markdoc` to `doc`).
I tried to not change any of the actual logic of the lints and as such some things weren't as easy to move to a separate file. So we still have some `span_lint*` calls in the `doc/mod.rs` file, which I think is fine. This is also the case in `methods/mod.rs`.
Also worth mentioning that the lints missing_errors_doc, missing_panics_doc, missing_safety_doc and unnecessary_safety_doc have a lot of the same logic so it didn't make much sense for each of these to be in their own file. Instead I just put them all in `missing_headers.rs`
I also added a bit of documentation to the involved `check_{attrs,doc}` methods.
changelog: none
Improve maybe misused cfg
Follow-up of the improvements that were suggested to me in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11821:
* I unified the output to use the same terms.
* I updated the code to prevent creating a new symbol.
r? `@blyxyas`
changelog: [`maybe_misued_cfg`]: Output and code improvements
