[`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`]
Add `SPEEDTEST`
In the `master` branch, we currently don't have any way to test the performance of a single lint in changes.
This PR adds `SPEEDTEST`, the environment variable which lets you do a speed test on a lint / category of tests with various configuration options.
Maybe we should merge this with `lintcheck` 🤔
See the book page for more information.
changelog:none
`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.
