fix `box-default` linting `no_std` non-boxes
This fixes#9653 by doing the check against the `Box` type correctly even if `Box` isn't there, as in `no_std` code. Thanks to `@lukas-code` for opening the issue and supplying a reproducer!
---
changelog: none
Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules for `from_over_into`
Adds a machine applicable suggestion to convert the `Into` impl into a `From` one to `from_over_into`
Also adds a note explaining that `impl From<Local> for Foreign` is fine if the `Into` type is foreign
Closes#7444
Addresses half of #9638
changelog: [`from_over_into`] Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules
Book: Small grammar + link a11y change
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: none
---
Very minor
For the link accessibility change, `here` and related don't provide context for screen readers who are reading a list of links.
(Random supporting google links)
https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHerehttps://usability.yale.edu/web-accessibility/articles/links
Fix edition revision ui tests
#9605 had me wondering how the edition revision tests were working for `manual_assert` but not for `@nyurik,` but it turns out `manual_assert`'s tests weren't working either. I checked how `rust-lang/rust` does it and apparently it comes down to whitespace, `//[rev] edition:X` works 😬
Removes the revisions from `match_wild_err_arm` as I couldn't find any edition dependant behaviour there
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: none
add tests in `implicit_saturating_sub` lint
This adds more tests to the `implicit_saturating_sub` lint to rule out certain false positives that have appeared in the past.
Now with those false positives out of the equation, we can move the lint to `style`.
---
changelog: promote [`implicit-saturating-sub`] to the `style` category
Change uninlined_format_args into a style lint
As [previously discussed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9233#issuecomment-1256361205), the `uninlined_format_args` should probably be a part of the default style because `println!("{}", foo)` is not as concise or easy to understand as `println!("{foo}")`
changelog: [`uninlined_format_args`]: change to be the default `style`
Fix to_string_in_format_args in parens
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
Fixes#9540
changelog: [`to_string_in_format_args`]: fix incorrect fix when value is enclosed in parenthesis
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
update Applicability of `rc_buffer` lint from `MachineApplicable` to `Unspecified`
`Unspecified`
This changes `rc_buffer` from MachineApplicable to Unspecified
```
changelog: change [`rc_buffer`] to Unspecified.
```
fixes#6241
---
changelog: change [`rc_buffer`] to Unspecified.
fix: uninlined_format_args shouldn't inline panic! before 2021ed
Before 2021 edition, `panic!("...")` was not treated as a format string.
Clippy autofix of `panic!("{}", foo)` into `panic!("{foo}")` is incorrect.
changelog: [`uninlined_format_args`]: Do not inline panic! macros before 2021 edition
Replace manual let else patterns with let else
Clears the codebase from places where the lint added by #8437 is firing, by adopting let else.
changelog: none
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
