Implemented `suspicious_to_owned` lint to check if `to_owned` is called on a `Cow`
changelog: Add lint ``[`suspicious_to_owned`]``
-----------------
Hi,
posting this unsolicited PR as I've been burned by this issue :)
Being unsolicited, feel free to reject it or reassign a different lint level etc.
This lint checks whether `to_owned` is called on `Cow<'_, _>`. This is done because `to_owned` is very similarly named to `into_owned`, but the effect of calling those two methods is completely different (one makes the `Cow::Borrowed` into a `Cow::Owned`, the other just clones the `Cow`). If the cow is then passed to code for which the type is not checked (e.g. generics, closures, etc.) it might slip through and if the cow data is coming from an unsafe context there is the potential for accidentally cause undefined behavior.
Even if not falling into this painful case, there's really no reason to call `to_owned` on a `Cow` other than confusing people reading the code: either `into_owned` or `clone` should be called.
Note that this overlaps perfectly with `implicit_clone` as a warning, but `implicit_clone` is classified pedantic (while the consequences for `Cow` might be of a wider blast radius than just pedantry); given the overlap, I set-up the lint so that if `suspicious_to_owned` triggers `implicit_clone` will not trigger. I'm not 100% sure this is done in the correct way (I tried to copy what other lints were doing) so please provide feedback on it if it isn't.
### Checklist
- \[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`
2d4d8e16cd