Previously the `clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason` lint would
apply to external crate macros. Many macros in the Rust ecosystem
include these `allow` attributes without adding a reason, making this
lint pretty much unusable in any sizable Rust project.
This commit fixes that by adding a check to the lint if the attribute is
from an external crate macro and returning early.
Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
fixes#9608
changelog: Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
Uplift `clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles` lint into rustc
This PR, as the title suggests, uplifts [`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`] lint into rustc. This lint warns for code like this:
```rust
for _ in Some(1) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, ()>(1) {}
```
i.e. directly iterating over `Option` and `Result` using `for` loop.
There are a number of suggestions that this PR adds (on top of what clippy suggested):
1. If the argument (? is there a better name for that expression) of a `for` loop is a `.next()` call, then we can suggest removing it (or rather replacing with `.by_ref()` to allow iterator being used later)
```rust
for _ in iter.next() {}
// turns into
for _ in iter.by_ref() {}
```
2. (otherwise) We can suggest using `while let`, this is useful for non-iterator, iterator-like things like [async] channels
```rust
for _ in rx.recv() {}
// turns into
while let Some(_) = rx.recv() {}
```
3. If the argument type is `Result<impl IntoIterator, _>` and the body has a `Result<_, _>` type, we can suggest using `?`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
for _ in f()? {}
```
4. To preserve the original behavior and clear intent, we can suggest using `if let`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
if let Some(_) = f() {}
```
(P.S. `Some` and `Ok` are interchangeable depending on the type)
I still feel that the lint wording/look is somewhat off, so I'll be happy to hear suggestions (on how to improve suggestions :D)!
Resolves#99272
[`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#for_loops_over_fallibles
rename `ImplItemKind::TyAlias` to `ImplItemKind::Type`
The naming of this variant seems inconsistent given that this is not really a "type alias", and the associated type variant for `TraitItemKind` is just called `Type`.
Further enhance `needless_borrow`, mildly refactor `redundant_clone`
This PR does the following:
* Moves some code from `redundant_clone` into a new `clippy_utils` module called `mir`, and wraps that code in a function called `dropped_without_further_use`.
* Relaxes the "is copyable" condition condition from #9136 by also suggesting to remove borrows from values dropped without further use. The changes involve the just mentioned function.
* Separates `redundant_clone` into modules.
Strictly speaking, the last bullet is independent of the others. `redundant_clone` is somewhat hairy, IMO. Separating it into modules makes it slightly less so, by helping to delineate what depends upon what.
I've tried to break everything up into digestible commits.
r? `@Jarcho`
(`@Jarcho` I hope you don't mind.)
changelog: continuation of #9136
Add `manual_filter` lint for `Option`
Share much of its implementation with `manual_map` and should greatly benefit from its previous feedback.
I'm sure it's possible to even more refactor both and would gladly take input on that as well as any clippy idiomatic usage, since this is my first lint addition.
I've added the lint to the complexity section for now, I don't know if every new lint needs to go in nursery first.
The matching could be expanded to more than `Some(<value>)` to lint on arbitrary struct matching inside the `Some` but I've left it like it was for `manual_map` for now. `needless_match::pat_same_as_expr` provides a more generic match example.
close https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8822
changelog: Add lint [`manual_filter`] for `Option`
Remove `mir::CastKind::Misc`
As discussed in #97649 `mir::CastKind::Misc` is not clear, this PR addresses that by creating a new enum variant for every valid cast.
r? ````@oli-obk````
extend `box-default` lint, add suggestion
This extends the recently added `box-default` lint to also cover `Box::new(vec![])`, `Box::new(String::from(""))` and `Box::new(Vec::from([]))`. Also the lint now suggests a suitable replacement. I did not find a simple way to check whether the type is fully determined by the outside, so I at least checked for some variations to remove the turbofish in those cases.
---
changelog: none
[`match_single_binding`] Add curlies for more cases to fix suggestion causes error
Fixes#9575
changelog: [`match_single_binding`]: Add curlies for scrutinees with side effects for more cases
lint::unsafe_removed_from_name: fix false positive result when allowed
changelog: [`unsafe_removed_from_name`] Fix allowing on imports produces a false positive on `useless_attribute`.
Fixes: #9197
Signed-off-by: Andy-Python-Programmer <andypythonappdeveloper@gmail.com>
Add a temporary workaround for multiline formart arg inlining
per suggestion in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102729#discussion_r988990080
workaround for an internal crash when handling multi-line format argument inlining.
changelog: none
(no point for changelog because it is still a new lint being introduced)
FormatArgsExpn: Find comma spans and ignore weird proc macro spans
Fixes the following cases:
A missing `, 1` from the `expect_fun_call` suggestion:
```rust
Some(()).expect(&format!("{x} {}", 1));
```
```
warning: use of `expect` followed by a function call
--> t.rs:7:14
|
7 | Some(()).expect(&format!("{x} {}", 1));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `unwrap_or_else(|| panic!("{x} {}"))`
```
The suggestion removing from the comma in the comment rather than the one after the format string:
```rust
println!(
"{}",
// a comment, with a comma in it
x
);
```
```
warning: variables can be used directly in the `format!` string
--> t.rs:9:5
|
9 | / println!(
10 | | "{}",
11 | | // a comment, with a comma in it
12 | | x
13 | | );
| |_____^
|
help: change this to
|
10 ~ "{x}",
11 ~ // a comment
|
```
It also no longer accepts expansions where a format string or argument has a "weird" proc macro span, that is one where the literal/expression it outputs has the span of one of its inputs. Kind of like a `format_args` specific `clippy_utils::is_from_proc_macro`, e.g. `format!(indoc! {" ... "})`
changelog: [`expect_fun_call`]: Fix suggestion for `format!` using captured variables
changelog: [`print_literal`], [`write_literal`], [`uninlined_format_args`]: Fix suggestion when following a comment including a comma
