or_fun_call: fix suggestion for `or_insert(vec![])`
fixes#6748
changelog: or_fun_call: fix suggestion for `or_insert(vec![])` on `std::collections::hash_map::Entry` or `std::collections::btree_map::Entry`
Applies for `std::collections::hash_map::Entry` and `std::collections::btree_map::Entry`
Example:
Previously, for the following code:
`let _ = hash_map.entry("test".to_owned()).or_insert(vec![]);`
clippy would suggest to use:
`or_insert_with(vec![])`, which causes a compiler error (E0277).
Now clippy suggests:
`or_insert_with(Vec::new)`
Fix suggestions that need parens in `from_iter_instead_of_collect` lint
Fixes broken suggestions that need parens (i.e.: range)
Fixes: #6648
changelog: none
This renames the variants in HIR UnOp from
enum UnOp {
UnDeref,
UnNot,
UnNeg,
}
to
enum UnOp {
Deref,
Not,
Neg,
}
Motivations:
- This is more consistent with the rest of the code base where most enum
variants don't have a prefix.
- These variants are never used without the `UnOp` prefix so the extra
`Un` prefix doesn't help with readability. E.g. we don't have any
`UnDeref`s in the code, we only have `UnOp::UnDeref`.
- MIR `UnOp` type variants don't have a prefix so this is more
consistent with MIR types.
- "un" prefix reads like "inverse" or "reverse", so as a beginner in
rustc code base when I see "UnDeref" what comes to my mind is
something like "&*" instead of just "*".
Add new lint `filter_map_identity`
<!--
Thank you for making Clippy better!
We're collecting our changelog from pull request descriptions.
If your PR only includes internal changes, you can just write
`changelog: none`. Otherwise, please write a short comment
explaining your change.
If your PR fixes an issue, you can add "fixes #issue_number" into this
PR description. This way the issue will be automatically closed when
your PR is merged.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[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`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
Note that you can skip the above if you are just opening a WIP PR in
order to get feedback.
Delete this line and everything above before opening your PR.
-->
This commit adds a new lint named filter_map_identity.
This lint is the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for the usage of `filter_map`.
---
Closes#6643
changelog: Added a new lint: `filter_map_identity`
This commit adds a new lint named `filter_map_identity`. This lint is
the same as `flat_map_identity` except that it checks for `filter_map`.
Closes#6643
New Lint: inspect_then_for_each
**Work In Progress**
This PR addresses [Issue 5209](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5209) and adds a new lint called `inspect_then_for_each`.
Current seek some guidance.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- \[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`
[lint_naming]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0344-conventions-galore.html#lints
---
changelog: Add [`inspect_for_each`] lint for the use of `inspect().for_each()` on `Iterators`.
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
Lint also in trait def for `wrong_self_convention`
Extends `wrong_self_convention` to lint also in trait definition.
By the way, I think the `wrong_pub_self_convention` [example](dd826b4626/clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs (L197)) is misleading.
On [playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=32615ab3f6009e7e42cc3754be0ca17f), it fires `wrong_self_convention`, so the example (or the lint maybe?) needs to be reworked.
The difference with `wrong_self_convention` [example](dd826b4626/clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs (L172)) is mainly the `pub` keyword on the method `as_str`, but the lint doesn't use the function visibility as condition to choose which lint to fire (in fact it uses the visibility of the impl item).
fixes: #6307
changelog: Lint `wrong_self_convention` lint in trait def also
Add Collapsible match lint
changelog: Add collapsible_match lint
Closes#1252Closes#2521
This lint finds nested `match` or `if let` patterns that can be squashed together. It is designed to be very conservative to only find cases where merging the patterns would most likely reduce cognitive complexity.
Example:
```rust
match result {
Ok(opt) => match opt {
Some(x) => x,
_ => return,
}
_ => return,
}
```
to
```rust
match result {
Ok(Some(x)) => x,
_ => return,
}
```
These criteria must be met for the lint to fire:
* The inner match has exactly 2 branches.
* Both the outer and inner match have a "wild" branch like `_ => ..`. There is a special case for `None => ..` to also be considered "wild-like".
* The contents of the wild branches are identical.
* The binding which "links" the matches is never used elsewhere.
Thanks to the hir, `if let`'s are easily included with this lint since they are desugared into equivalent `match`'es.
I think this would fit into the style category, but I would also understand changing it to pedantic.
instead of `find()` follows by `is_some()` on strings
Update clippy_lints/src/find_is_some_on_strs.rs
Co-authored-by: Takayuki Nakata <f.seasons017@gmail.com>
Update clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs
Co-authored-by: Philipp Krones <hello@philkrones.com>
