[`slow_vector_initialization`]: catch `Vec::new()` followed by `.resize(len, 0)`
Closes#10938
changelog: [`slow_vector_initialization`]: catch `Vec::new()` followed by `.resize(len, 0)`
New lint [`needless_return_with_try`]
Closes#10902
Rather than having a config option, this will just suggest removing the "return"; if `try_err` is used as well, then it'll be added again but without the `?`.
changelog: New lint [`needless_return_with_try`]
ptr_arg should ignore extern functions
Fixes: #11181
changelog: [`ptr_arg`]: ignore extern functions that are not
I am not sure whether we should ignore other Rust calling conventions like `rust-intrinsic`, `rust-call` or `rust-cold`.
`unwrap_or_else_default` -> `unwrap_or_default` and improve resulting lint
Resolves#10080 (though it doesn't implement exactly what's described there)
This PR does the following:
1. Merges `unwrap_or_else_default.rs`'s code into `or_fun_call.rs`
2. Extracts the code to handle `unwrap_or(/* default value */)` and similar, and moves it into `unwrap_or_else_default`
3. Implements the missing functionality from #9342, e.g.,, to handle `or_insert_with(Default::default)`
4. Renames `unwrap_or_else_default` to `unwrap_or_default` (since the "new" lint handles both `unwrap_or` and `unwrap_or_else`, it seemed sensible to use the shortened name)
This PR is currently two commits. The first implements 1-3, the second implements 4.
A word about 2: the `or_fun_call` lint currently produces warnings like the following:
```
error: use of `unwrap_or` followed by a call to `new`
--> $DIR/or_fun_call.rs:56:14
|
LL | with_new.unwrap_or(Vec::new());
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try: `unwrap_or_default()`
```
To me, such warnings look like they should come from `unwrap_or_else_default`, not `or_fun_call`, especially since `or_fun_call` is [in the nursery](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9829).
---
changelog: Move: Renamed `unwrap_or_else_default` to [`unwrap_or_default`]
[#10120](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10120)
changelog: Enhancement: [`unwrap_or_default`]: Now handles more functions, like `or_insert_with`
[#10120](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10120)
<!-- changelog_checked-->
check that the types are equal in `SpanlessEq::eq_expr`
Fixes#11213
changelog: [`if_same_then_else`]: don't lint for integer literals of different types
Fix async functions handling for `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` lint
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11179.
The problem with async is that "internals" are actually inside a closure from the `ExprUseVisitor` point of view, meaning we need to actually run the check on the closures' body as well.
changelog: none
r? `@llogiq`
Make `comparison_to_empty` work on `if let`/`let` chains
This adds `LetChain` to `clippy_utils::higher`, other lints may benefit from such a change as well :D
changelog: Enhancement: [`comparison_to_empty`]: Now lints on `if let`
[`unused_async`]: don't lint if paths reference async fn without immediate call
Fixes#9695Fixes#9359
Clippy shouldn't lint unused `async` if there are paths referencing them if that path isn't the receiver of a function call, because that means that the function might be passed to some other function:
```rs
async fn f() {} // No await statements, so unused at this point
fn requires_fn_future<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: fn() -> F) {}
requires_fn_future(f); // `f`'s asyncness is actually not unused.
```
(This isn't limited to just passing the function as a parameter to another function, it could also first be stored in a variable and later passed to another function as an argument)
This requires delaying the linting until post-crate and collecting path references to local async functions along the way.
changelog: [`unused_async`]: don't lint if paths reference async fn that require asyncness
fix dogfood lints in `redundant_local`
keep `redundant_local` from running in proc macros
rewrite `redundant_local` as late pass
make redundant_local's `find_binding` more readable
pluralize `redundant_locals` name
add test for `redundant_locals` in macros
test `redundant_locals` in proc macros
use more destructuring in `redundant_locals`
fix: format redundant_locals.rs
ignore needless_pass_by_mut_ref in redundant_locals test
Allow `Self::cmp(self, other)` as a correct impl
Fixes#11178
Also no longer checks if the method name is *just* cmp, but the path. That was an oversight on my part ^^
r? `@xFrednet`
(and `@blyxyas` too!)
changelog: [`incorrect_partial_ord_impl_on_ord_type`]: Now allows non-method calls to `cmp` like `Self::cmp(self, other)`
fix: false positive for `option_env!` in `ifs_same_cond`
Clippy had a false positive for with `ifs_same_cond` when two if-let expressions have an `option_env!` macro. The fix is similar to the `env!` macro fix.
The following example had a clippy error:
```rust
if let Some(env1) = option_env!("ENV1") {
// ...
} else if let Some(env2) = option_env!("ENV2") {
// ...
}
```
See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=01b85c61b56ddd900117fb247af04824
changelog: [`ifs_same_cond`]: fix false positive when using `option_env!` in if-let expressions.
[`unnecessary_literal_unwrap`]: Fix ICE on None.unwrap_or_default()
Fixes#11099Fixes#11064
I'm running into #11099 (cc `@y21)` on my Rust codebase. Clippy ICEs on this code when evaluating the `unnecessary_literal_unwrap` lint:
```rust
fn main() {
let val1: u8 = None.unwrap_or_default();
}
```
This fixes that ICE and adds an message specifically for that case:
```
error: used `unwrap_or_default()` on `None` value
--> $DIR/unnecessary_literal_unwrap.rs:26:5
|
LL | None::<String>.unwrap_or_default();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: remove the `None` and `unwrap_or_default()`: `String::default()`
```
This PR also fixes the same ICE with `None.unwrap_or_else` (by giving the generic error message for the lint in that case).
changelog: Fix ICE in `unnecessary_literal_unwrap` on `None.unwrap_or_default()`
Clippy had a false positive for with `ifs_same_cond` when two
if-let expressions have an `option_env!` macro. The fix is similar to the
`env!` macro fix.
The following example had a clippy error:
```rust
if let Some(env1) = option_env!("ENV1") {
// ...
} else if let Some(env2) = option_env!("ENV2") {
// ...
}
```
See https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=01b85c61b56ddd900117fb247af04824
changelog: Fix [`ifs_same_cond`] false positive when using `option_env!` in if-let expressions.
[`manual_filter_map`]: lint on `matches` and pattern matching
Fixes#8010
Previously this lint only worked specifically for a very limited set of methods on the filter call (`.filter(|opt| opt.is_some())` and `.filter(|res| res.is_ok())`). This PR extends it to also recognize `matches!` in the `filter` and pattern matching with `if let` or `match` in the `map`.
Example:
```rs
enum Enum {
A(i32),
B,
}
let _ = [Enum::A(123), Enum::B].into_iter()
.filter(|x| matches!(x, Enum::A(_)))
.map(|x| if let Enum::A(s) = x { s } else { unreachable!() });
```
Now suggests:
```diff
- .filter(|x| matches!(x, Enum::A(_))).map(if let Enum::A(s) = x { s } else { unreachable!() })
+ .filter_map(|x| match x { Enum::A(s) => Some(s), _ => None })
```
Adding this required a somewhat large change in code because it originally seemed to be specifically written with only method calls in the filter in mind, and `matches!` has different behavior in the map, so this new setup should make it possible to support more "generic" cases that need different handling for the filter and map calls.
changelog: [`manual_filter_map`]: lint on `matches` and pattern matching (and some internal refactoring)
Fix `unwrap_or_else_default` false positive
This PR fixes a false positive in the handling of `unwrap_or_else` with a default value when the value is needed for type inference.
An easy example to exhibit the false positive is the following:
```rust
let option = None;
option.unwrap_or_else(Vec::new).push(1);
```
The following code would not compile, because the fact that the value is a `Vec` has been lost:
```rust
let option = None;
option.unwrap_or_default().push(1);
```
The fix is to:
- implement a heuristic to tell whether an expression's type can be determined purely from its subexpressions, and the arguments and locals they use;
- apply the heuristic to `unwrap_or_else`'s receiver.
The heuristic returns false when applied to `option` in the above example, but it returns true when applied to `option` in either of the following examples:
```rust
let option: Option<Vec<u64>> = None;
option.unwrap_or_else(Vec::new).push(1);
```
```rust
let option = None::<Vec<u64>>;
option.unwrap_or_else(Vec::new).push(1);
```
(Aside: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10120 unfairly contained multiple changes in one PR. I am trying to break that PR up into smaller pieces.)
---
changelog: FP: [`unwrap_or_else_default`]: No longer lints if the default value is needed for type inference
Rewrite [`tuple_array_conversions`]
Fixes#11100Fixes#11144Fixes#11124#11082 still needs discussion and #11085 likely can't be fixed.
changelog: [`tuple_array_conversions`]: Move to `pedantic`
changelog: [`tuple_array_conversions`]: Don't lint if mutability of references changes
changelog: [`tuple_array_conversions`]: Don't lint if bindings don't come from the exact same pattern
changelog: [`tuple_array_conversions`]: Don't lint if bindings are used for more than just the conversion
Add `imports_granularity = "Module"` to rustfmt.toml
This lets rustfmt split/merge imports, `Module` seems to be the most common style in clippy
https://rust-lang.github.io/rustfmt/?version=v1.6.0&search=#imports_granularity
changelog: none
Almost all the updates other than the config file change are from `cargo dev fmt` or blessed tests, the exceptions being
- `tests/ui/single_component_path_imports.rs`
- `tests/ui/single_component_path_imports_nested_first.rs`
- `tests/ui/single_component_path_imports_self_after.rs`
- `tests/ui/single_component_path_imports_self_before.rs`
- `tests/ui/unsafe_removed_from_name.rs` (added a test with merged imports as a drive by)
- `tests/ui/wildcard_imports.rs`
- `tests/ui/wildcard_imports_2021.rs`
[`arithmetic_side_effect`]: allow different types on the right hand side for `Wrapping<T>`
Fixes#11145
This lint has a list of allowed types, one of which is `Wrapping<T>`, but it was only actually allowed if the type on the right hand side was also `Wrapping<T>`, which meant that, for example, `Wrapping<u32> += u32` would still lint. It now allows binary ops involving `Wrapping<T>` regardless of the type on the rhs.
These impls have only existed since Rust 1.60.0, so that is probably why the lint was previously not handling this correctly
changelog: [`arithmetic_side_effect`]: allow different types on the right hand side for `Wrapping<T>` (e.g. `Wrapping<T> += T`)
This commit fixes#11025 by removing checks for `todo!`,
`unimplemented!` and `unreachable!`.
Signed-off-by: Panagiotis Foliadis <pfoliadis@hotmail.com>
Uplift `clippy::fn_null_check` lint
This PR aims at uplifting the `clippy::fn_null_check` lint into rustc.
## `incorrect_fn_null_checks`
(warn-by-default)
The `incorrect_fn_null_checks` lint checks for expression that checks if a function pointer is null.
### Example
```rust
let fn_ptr: fn() = /* somehow obtained nullable function pointer */
if (fn_ptr as *const ()).is_null() { /* ... */ }
```
### Explanation
Function pointers are assumed to be non-null, checking for their nullity is incorrect.
-----
Mostly followed the instructions for uplifting a clippy lint described here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99696#pullrequestreview-1134072751
`@rustbot` label: +I-lang-nominated
r? compiler
[`unnecessary_literal_unwrap`]: don't lint if binding initializer comes from expansion
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/discussions/11109
changelog: [`unnecessary_literal_unwrap`]: don't lint if binding initializer comes from expansion
"try this" -> "try"
Current help messages contain a mix of "try", "try this", and one "try this instead". In the spirit of #10631, this PR adopts the first, as it is the most concise.
It also updates the `lint_message_conventions` test to catch cases of "try this".
(Aside: #10120 unfairly contained multiple changes in one PR. I am trying to break that PR up into smaller pieces.)
changelog: Make help messages more concise ("try this" -> "try").
Add `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` lint
changelog: [`needless_pass_by_ref_mut`]: This PR add a new lint `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` which emits a warning in case a `&mut` function argument isn't used mutably. It doesn't warn on trait and trait impls functions.
Fixes#8863.
cargo dev fmt
cargo test passes
cargo test passes
refactor a lil
Update bool_comparison.stderr
heavily refactor + bump `clippy::version`
refactor
refactor
check bounds to increase accuracy, and add todos
new lint: `read_line_without_trim`
This adds a new lint that checks for calls to `Stdin::read_line` with a reference to a string that is then attempted to parse into an integer type without first trimming it, which is always going to fail at runtime.
This is something that I've seen happen a lot to beginners, because it's easy to run into when following the example of chapter 2 in the book where it shows how to program a guessing game.
It would be nice if we could point beginners to clippy and tell them "let's see what clippy has to say" and have clippy explain to them why it fails 👀
I think this lint can later be "generalized" to work not just for `Stdin` but also any `BufRead` (which seems to be where the guarantee about the trailing newline comes from) and also, matching/comparing it to a string slice that doesn't end in a newline character (e.g. `input == "foo"` is always going to fail)
changelog: new lint: [`read_line_without_trim`]
[`useless_vec`]: add more tests and don't lint inside of macros
Closes#11084.
I realized that the fix I added in #11081 itself also causes an error in a suggestion when inside of a macro. Example:
```rs
macro_rules! x {
() => {
for _ in vec![1, 2] {}
}
}
x!();
```
Here it would suggest replacing `vec![1, 2]` with `[x!()]`, because that's what the source callsite is (reminder: it does this to get the correct span of `x!()` for code like `for _ in vec![x!()]`), but that's wrong when *inside* macros, so I decided to make it not lint if the whole loop construct is inside a macro to avoid this issue.
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: add more tests and don't lint inside of macros
r? `@Alexendoo` since these were your tests, I figured it makes most sense to assign you
Don't lint manual_let_else in cases where ? would work
Don't lint `manual_let_else` where the question mark operator `?` would be sufficient, that is, mostly in cases like:
```Rust
let v = if let Some(v) = ex { v } else { return None };
```
Also, this PR emits the `question_mark` lint for `let...else` patterns that could be written with `?` (also, only `return None` like cases).
```
changelog: [`manual_let_else`]: don't lint in cases where question_mark already lints
changelog: [`question_mark`]: lint for `let Some(...) = ex else { return None };`
```
Fixes #8755
[`useless_vec`]: use the source span for initializer
Fixes#11075.
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: use the source span for the initializer expression when inside of a macro
[`arc_with_non_send_sync`]: don't lint if type has nested type parameters
Fixes#11076
changelog: [`arc_with_non_send_sync`]: don't lint if type has nested type parameters
r? `@Manishearth`
new lint: `type_id_on_box`
Closes#7687.
A new lint that detects calling `.type_id()` on `Box<dyn Any>` (and not on the underlying `dyn Any`), which can make up for some pretty confusing bugs!
changelog: new lint: [`type_id_on_box`]
`let_and_return`: lint 'static lifetimes, don't lint borrows in closures
Fixes#11056
Now also ignores functions returning `'static` lifetimes, since I noticed the `stdin.lock()` example was still being linted but doesn't need to be since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93965
changelog: none
New lint [`tuple_array_conversions`]
Closes#10748
PS, the implementation is a bit ugly 😅 ~~I will likely refactor soon enough :)~~ Done :D
changelog: New lint [`tuple_array_conversions`]
Also, lint question_mark for `let...else` clauses that can be simplified to use `?`.
This lint isn't perfect as it doesn't support the unstable try blocks.
[significant_drop_tightening] Fix#10413Fix#10413
This is quite a rewrite that unfortunately took a large amount of time. I tried my best to comment what is going on to easy review but feel free to ask any question.
The problem basically is that the current algorithm is only taking into consideration single blocks which means that things like the following don't work or show unpredictable results.
```rust
let mutex = Mutex::new(1);
{
let lock = mutex.lock().unwrap();
{
let _ = *lock;
}
}
```
The solve the issue, each path that refers a lock is now being tracked individually.
```
changelog: [`significant_drop_tightening`]: Lift the restriction of only considerate single blocks
```
New lint [`redundant_at_rest_pattern`]
Closes#11011
It's always a great feeling when a new lint triggers on clippy itself 😄
changelog: New lint [`redundant_at_rest_pattern`]
