New lint: vec_init_then_push
fixes: #1483
This will trigger on `new`, `default`, and `with_capacity` when the given capacity is less than or equal to the number of push calls. Is there anything else this should trigger on?
changelog: Added lint: `vec_init_then_push`
This splits up clippy::collapsible_if into collapsible_if for
if x {
if y { }
}
=>
if x && y { }
and collapsible_else_if for
if x {
} else {
if y { }
}
=>
if x {
} else if y {
}
so that we can lint for only the latter but not the first if we desire.
changelog: collapsible_if: split up linting for if x {} else { if y {} } into collapsible_else_if lint
Clippy treated Rust 2021 as Rust 2015, because 2018 was checked with
`==` instead of `>=`. This fixes that, such that 2018-specific things
are also enabled for 2021.
- Adds optional default values to const generic parameters in the AST
and HIR
- Parses these optional default values
- Adds a `const_generics_defaults` feature gate
Reassign default private
changelog: fix field_reassign_with_default false positive
* Fix#6344
* Fix assumption that `field: Default::default()` is the same as `..Default::default()`
* Cleanup some redundant logic
Added from_over_into lint
Closes#6456
Added a lint that searches for implementations of `Into<..>` and suggests to implement `From<..>` instead, as it comes with a default implementation of `Into`. Category: style.
changelog: added `from_over_into` lint
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
needless_doctest_main: handle correctly parse errors
Before this change, finding an error when parsing a doctest would make Clippy exit without emitting an error. Now we properly catch a fatal error and ignore it.
Also, if a doctest specifies an edition in the info line, it will be used when parsing it.
changelog: needless_doctest_main: handle correctly parse errors
Fixes#6022
Move binder for dyn to each list item
This essentially changes `ty::Binder<&'tcx List<ExistentialTraitRef>>` to `&'tcx List<ty::Binder<ExistentialTraitRef>>`.
This is a first step in moving the `dyn Trait` representation closer to Chalk, which we've talked about in `@rust-lang/wg-traits.`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Implement if-let match guards
Implements rust-lang/rfcs#2294 (tracking issue: #51114).
I probably should do a few more things before this can be merged:
- [x] Add tests (added basic tests, more advanced tests could be done in the future?)
- [x] Add lint for exhaustive if-let guard (comparable to normal if-let statements)
- [x] Fix clippy
However since this is a nightly feature maybe it's fine to land this and do those steps in follow-up PRs.
Thanks a lot `@matthewjasper` ❤️ for helping me with lowering to MIR! Would you be interested in reviewing this?
r? `@ghost` for now
Fixing a false positive for the `match_single_binding` lint #5552
This is a fix for a false positive in the `match_single_binding` lint when using `#[cfg()]` on a branch. It is sadly a bit hacky but maybe the best solution as rust removes the other branch from the AST before we can even validate it. This fix looks at the code snippet itself and returns if it includes another thick arrow `=>` besides the one matching arm we found. This can again cause false negatives if someone has the following code:
```rust
match x {
// => <-- Causes a false negative
_ => 1,
}
```
I thought about making the code more complex and maybe validating against other things like the `#[cfg()]` macro but I believe that this is the best solution. This has basically switched the issue from a false positive to a false negative in a very specific case.
I'm happy to make some changes if you have any suggestions 🙃.
---
Fixes#5552
changelog: Fixed a false positive in the `match_single_binding` lint with `#[cfg()]` macro
