consider mutability on useless_vec suggestions
fixes#7035
changelog: Now the suggested by `useless_vec` considers mutability to suggest either `&[]`, as before, or `&mut []` if the used reference is mutable.
This is a quick-fix for an ICE in `tabs_in_doc_comments`. The problem
was that we we're indexing into possibly multi-byte characters, such as '位'.
More specifically `get_chunks_of_tabs` was returning indices into
multi-byte characters. Those were passed on to a `Span` creation that
then caused the ICE.
This fix makes sure that we don't return indices that point inside a
multi-byte character. *However*, we are still iterating over unicode
codepoints, not grapheme clusters. So a seemingly single character like y̆ ,
which actually consists of two codepoints, will probably still cause
incorrect spans in the output.
Don't trigger `same_item_push` if the vec is used in the loop body
fixes#6987
changelog: `same_item_push`: Don't trigger if the `vec` is used in the loop body
fix `missing_panics_doc` not detecting `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!`
fixes#6997
changelog: `missing_panics_doc` detects `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!`
---
searching for `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` in `FindPanicUnwrap`
New Lint: `branches_sharing_code`
This lint checks if all `if`-blocks contain some statements that are the same and can be moved out of the blocks to prevent code duplication. Here is an example:
```rust
let _ = if ... {
println!("Start"); // <-- Lint for code duplication
let _a = 99;
println!("End"); // <-- Lint for code duplication
false
} else {
println!("Start");
let _b = 17;
println!("End");
false
};
```
This could be written as:
```rust
println!("Start");
let _ = if ... {
let _a = 99;
false
} else {
let _b = 17;
false
};
println!("End");
```
---
This lint will get masked by the `IF_SAME_THEN_ELSE` lint. I think it makes more sense to only emit one lint per if block. This means that the folloing example:
```rust
if ... {
let _a = 17;
} else {
let _a = 17;
}
```
Will only trigger the `IF_SAME_THEN_ELSE` lint and not the `SHARED_CODE_IN_IF_BLOCKS` lint.
---
closes: #5234
changelog: Added a new lint: `branches_sharing_code`
And hello to the one that is writing the changelog for this release :D
Remove author requirement for `cargo_common_metadata`
This PR follows https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/9282, I'm not fully informed about all of this, it would be great if somebody knowledgeable about this topic agrees.
changelog: Changed `cargo_common_metadata` to stop linting on the optional author field.
* 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
Fix `redundant_clone` fp
fixes: #5973fixes: #5595fixes: #6998
changelog: Fix `redundant_clone` fp where the cloned value is modified while the clone is in use.
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.
disable upper_case_acronyms for pub items - enum edition
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/6803 (again... 😅 )
My previous fix did not work for enums because enum variants were checked separately in the `check_variant` function but it looks like we can't use that because we can't tell if the enum the variants belong to is declared as public or not (it always said `Inherited` for me)
I went and special-cased enums and iterated over all the variants "manually", but only, if the enums is not public.
---
changelog: fix upper_case_acronyms still firing on public enums (#6803)
Refactor types
r? `@flip1995`
This is the last PR to close#6724🎉
Also, this fixes#6936.
changelog: `vec_box`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
changelog: `linkedlist`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
changelog: `option_option`: Fix FN in `const` or `static`
Improve `clone_on_copy`
This also removes the `clone_on_copy_mut` test as the same thing is covered in the `clone_on_copy` test.
changelog: `copy_on_clone` lint on chained method calls taking self by value
changelog: `copy_on_clone` only lint when using the `Clone` trait
changelog: `copy_on_clone` correct suggestion when the cloned value is a macro call.
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
Improve `expl_impl_clone_on_copy`
fixes: #1254
changelog: Check to see if the generic constraints are the same as if using derive for `expl_impl_clone_on_copy`
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
`len_without_is_empty` improvements
fixes: #6958fixes: #6972
changelog: Check the return type of `len`. Only integral types, or an `Option` or `Result` wrapping one.
changelog: Ensure the return type of `is_empty` matches. e.g. `Option<usize>` -> `Option<bool>`
Check the return type of `len`. Only integral types, or an `Option` or `Result` wrapping one.
Ensure the return type of `is_empty` matches. e.g. `Option<usize>` -> `Option<bool>`
Fix bad suggestion when a reborrow might be required
Fix bad suggestion when the value being sliced is a macro call
Don't lint inside of a macro due to the previous context sensitive changes
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.
search_is_some: add checking for `is_none()`
fixes: #6815
changelog: search_is_some: add checking for `is_none()`.
To be honest I don't know what is the process of renaming the lints. Appreciate any feedback if that needs to be handled differently. Thanks!
Fix bad suggestion for `match_single_binding` lint
Fix a bad suggestion that needs curly braces when the target `match` is the body of an arm.
Fixes#6572
changelog: none
`match_wildcard` improvements
fixes: #6604fixes: #5733fixes: #6862#5733 is only fixed in the normal case, if different paths are used for the variants then the same problem will occur. It's cause by `def_path_str` returning an utterly useless result. I haven't dug into why yet.
For #6604 there should be some discussion before accepting this. It's easy enough to change the message rather than disable the lint for `Option` and `Result`.
changelog: Attempt to find a common path prefix for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
changelog: Don't lint op `Option` and `Result` for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
changelog: Consider `or` patterns and `Self` prefix for `match_wildcard_for_single_variants` and `wildcard_enum_match_arm`
Deprecate `intrinsics::drop_in_place` and `collections::Bound`, which accidentally weren't deprecated
Fixes#82080.
I've taken the liberty of updating the `since` values to 1.52, since an unobservable deprecation isn't much of a deprecation (even the detailed release notes never bothered to mention these deprecations).
As mentioned in the issue I'm *pretty* sure that using a type alias for `Bound` is semantically equivalent to the re-export; [the reference implies](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/type-aliases.html) that type aliases only observably differ from types when used on unit structs or tuple structs, whereas `Bound` is an enum.
ast/hir: Rename field-related structures
I always forget what `ast::Field` and `ast::StructField` mean despite working with AST for long time, so this PR changes the naming to less confusing and more consistent.
- `StructField` -> `FieldDef` ("field definition")
- `Field` -> `ExprField` ("expression field", not "field expression")
- `FieldPat` -> `PatField` ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Various visiting and other methods working with the fields are renamed correspondingly too.
The second commit reduces the size of `ExprKind` by boxing fields of `ExprKind::Struct` in preparation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80080.
Don't lint on `Result` and `Option` types.
Considers `or` patterns.
Considers variants prefixed with `Self`
Suggestions will try to find a common prefix rather than just using the full path
Write literal suggestion
fixes: #6768
changelog: Add suggestion to `write_literal` and `print_literal` lints
changelog: Change `use_debug` to point only at the format string
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
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`.
replace span_lint with span_lint_and_sugg along with error message
fixes: #6874
changelog: none
apologies if this may not be the most idiomatic way of doing it, any advice on changes (if any) would be greatly appreciated.
mem_replace_with_default: recognize some std library ctors
fixes#6562
changelog: mem_replace_with_default: recognize some common constructors equivalent to `Default::default()`
Fix suggestion for `explicit_deref_methods`. Sometimes `&**` is needed, sometimes nothing is needed.
Allow `explicit_deref_methods` to trigger in a few new contexts.
`explicit_deref_methods` will now consider ufcs calls
inconsistent_struct_constructor: try to make message and lint description a bit clearer
changelog: inconsistent_struct_constructor: try to make message and lint description a bit clearer
r? `@ghost`
Fix false positives on procedural macros of `missing_inline_in_public_items` lint
Fixes#6486.
changelog: Fix false positives on procedural macros of `missing_inline_in_public_items` lint.
Improve needless_borrowed_ref docs
changelog: none
I think "borrowed ref" is a confusing description for this lint. Destructuring a reference is the opposite of borrowing. So I updated the wording throughout the docs. Unfortunately this nit applies to the name of the lint itself, but I won't bother changing that. One motivation for these changes is to clarify the difference between this lint and `needless_borrow` (they are actually quite different). Let me know if I need to clarify anything or if you disagree with any changes.
