fix fp when [`undocumented_unsafe_blocks`] not able to detect comment on globally defined const/static variables
fixes: #11246
changelog: fix detection on global variables for [`undocumented_unsafe_blocks`]
skip `todo!()` in `never_loop`
As promised in #11450, here is an implementation which skips occurrences of the `todo!()` macro.
changelog: [`never_loop`]: skip loops containing `todo!()`
Don't pass extra generic arguments in `needless_borrow`
fixes#10253
Also switches to using `implements_trait` which does ICE when clippy's debug assertions are enabled.
changelog: None
[`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: don't ICE on default generic parameter and move to nursery
Fixes#11422
This fixes two ICEs ([1](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11422#issue-1872351763), [2](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=2901e6febb479d3bd2a74f8a5b8a9305)), and moves it to nursery for now, because this lint needs some improvements in its suggestion (see #11435, for one such example).
changelog: Moved [`implied_bounds_in_impls`] to nursery (Now allow-by-default)
[#11437](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11437)
changelog: [`implied_bounds_in_impls`]: don't ICE on default generic parameter in supertrait clause
r? `@xFrednet` (since you reviewed my PR that added this lint, I figured it might make sense to have you review this as well since you have seen this code before. If you don't want to review this, sorry! Feel free to reroll then)
--------
As for the ICE, it's pretty complicated and very confusing imo, so I'm going to try to explain the idea here (partly for myself, too, because I've confused myself several times writing- and fixing this):
<details>
<summary>Expand</summary>
The general idea behind the lint is that, if we have this function:
```rs
fn f() -> impl PartialEq<i32> + PartialOrd<i32> { 0 }
```
We want to lint the `PartialEq` bound because it's unnecessary. That exact bound is already specified in `PartialOrd<i32>`'s supertrait clause:
```rs
trait PartialOrd<Rhs>: PartialEq<Rhs> {}
// PartialOrd<i32>: PartialEq<i32>
```
The way it does this is in two steps:
- Go through all of the bounds in the `impl Trait` return type and collect each of the trait's supertrait bounds into a vec. We also store the generic arguments for later.
- `PartialEq` has no supertraits, nothing to add.
- `PartialOrd` is defined as `trait PartialOrd: PartialEq`, so add `PartialEq` to the list, as well as the generic argument(s) `<i32>`
Once we are done, we have these entries in the vec: `[(PartialEq, [i32])]`
- Go through all the bounds again, and looking for those bounds that have their trait `DefId` in the implied bounds vec.
- `PartialEq` is in that vec. However, that is not enough, because the trait is generic. If the user wrote `impl PartialEq<String> + PartialOrd<i32>`, then `PartialOrd` clearly doesn't imply `PartialEq`. Which means, we also need to check that the generic parameters match. This is why we also collected the generic arguments in `PartialOrd<i32>`. This process of checking generic arguments is pretty complicated and is also where the two ICEs happened.
The way it checks that the generic arguments match is by comparing the generic parameters in the super trait clause:
```rs
trait PartialOrd<Rhs>: PartialEq<Rhs> {}
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
...this needs to match...
```rs
fn f() -> impl PartialEq<i32> + ...
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
In the compiler, the `Rhs` generic parameter is its own type and we cannot just compare it to `i32`. We need to "substitute" it.
Internally, `Rhs` is represented as `Rhs#1` (the number next to # represents the type parameter index. They start at 0, but 0 is "reserved" for the implicit `Self` generic parameter).
How do we go from `Rhs#1` to `i32`? Well, we know that all the generic parameters had to be substituted in the `impl ... + PartialOrd<i32>` type. So we subtract 1 from the type parameter index, giving us 0 (`Self` is not specified in that list of arguments). We use that as the index into the generic argument list `<i32>`. That's `i32`. Now we know that the supertrait clause looks like `: PartialEq<i32>`.
Then, we can compare that to what the user actually wrote on the bound that we think is being implied: `impl PartialEq<i32> + ...`.
Now to the actual bug: this whole logic doesn't take into account *default* generic parameters. Actually, `PartialOrd` is defined like this:
```rs
trait PartialOrd<Rhs = Self>: PartialEq<Rhs> {}
```
If we now have a function like this:
```rs
fn f() -> impl PartialOrd + PartialEq {}
```
that logic breaks apart... We look at the supertrait predicate `: PartialEq<Rhs>` (`Rhs` is `Rhs#1`), then take the first argument in the generic argument list `PartialEq<..>` to resolve the `Rhs`, but at this point we crash because there *is no* generic argument.
The index 0 is out of bounds. If this happens (and we even get to linting here, which could only happen if it passes typeck), it must mean that that generic parameter has a default type that is not required to be specified.
This PR changes the logic such that if we have a type parameter index that is out of bounds, it looks at the definition of the trait and check that there exists a default type that we can use instead.
So, we see `<Rhs = Self>`, and use `Self` for substitution, and end up with this predicate: `: PartialEq<Self>`. No crash this time.
</details>
`never_loop` catches `loop { panic!() }`
* Depends on: #11447
This is an outgrowth of #11447 which I felt would best be done as a separate PR because it yields significant new results.
This uses typecheck results to determine divergence, meaning we can now detect cases like `loop { std::process::abort() }` or `loop { panic!() }`. A downside is that `loop { unimplemented!() }` is also being linted, which is arguably a false positive. I'm not really sure how to check this from HIR though, and it seems best to leave this epicycle for a later PR.
changelog: [`never_loop`]: Now lints on `loop { panic!() }` and similar constructs
Clippy Book Chapter Updates Reborn: Trait Checking
This PR adds a new chapter to the book: "Trait Checking". No major changes from the source (just some typos, re-phrasing, the usual).
## Notes
- Does not require any other PR to be merged.
- To talk about the whole project, please use the tracking issue for the project #10597 (It also contains a timeline, discussions and more information)
changelog: Add a new "Trait Checking" chapter to the book
fix some comments
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.
It's also helpful for us that the lint name is put within backticks (`` ` ` ``),
and then encapsulated by square brackets (`[]`), for example:
```
changelog: [`lint_name`]: 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.
---
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: none
Clippy Book Chapter Updates Reborn: Emitting lints
The PR adds a new chapter to the book: "Emitting lints". This time it changed a lot from the old source file.
## Notes
- For discussion about the whole project, please use the tracking issue for the project #10597 (It also contains a timeline, discussions, and more information)
changelog: Add a new "Emitting lints" chapter to the book
r? `@flip1995`
Clippy Book Chapter Updates Reborn: Writing tests
This PR adds a new chapter to the book: "Writing tests". The changes have been mainly done from reviews from #9426 and some minor re-writes.
## Notes
- We still need to check that the `git status`es are correct, as `cargo dev new_lint` changed a lot since 2022.
- Requires #10598: Link to "Emitting Lints" where I flagged with `FIXME:`.
- To talk about the whole project, please use the tracking issue for the project #10597 (It also contains a timeline, discussions and more information)
changelog: Add a new "Writing tests" chapter to the book
r? `@flip1995`
Bump ui_test
This makes `ui_test` parse `--bless` and allows a follow up change to use `Mode::Error` (instead of `Mode::Yolo`) with `RustfixMode::Everything`
changelog: none
new lint: `missing_asserts_for_indexing`
Fixes#8296
This lint looks for repeated slice indexing and suggests adding an `assert!` beforehand that helps LLVM elide bounds checks. The lint documentation has an example.
I'm not really sure what category this should be in. It seems like a nice lint for the `perf` category but I suspect this has a pretty high FP rate, so it might have to be a pedantic lint or something.
I'm also not sure about the name. If someone knows a better name for this lint, I'd be fine with changing it.
changelog: new lint [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]
