Don't cross contexts while building the suggestion for `redundant_closure_call`
fixes#9957
changelog: `redundant_closure_call`: Don't cross macro contexts while building the suggestion
Move `unnecessary_unsafety_doc` to `pedantic`
This lint was added in #9822. I like the idea, but also agree with #9986 as well. I think it should at least not be warn-by-default. This is one of these cases, where I'd like a group between pedantic and restriction. But I believe that users using `#![warn(clippy::pedantic)]` will know how to enable the lint if they disagree with it.
---
Since the lint is new:
changelog: none
r? `@flip1995` since I'd suggest back porting this, the original PR was merged 16 days ago.
Closes: #9986 (While it doesn't address everything, I believe that this is the best compromise)
Add S-waiting-on-review autolabel.
This adds the S-waiting-on-review autolabel feature for new PRs. This was previously handled by highfive, but I neglected to include it in #9963.
changelog: none
Move `index_refutable_slice` to `pedantic`
During the creation, I out this lint into the nursery group to let it run in the wild before moving it to a commonly used group. This move never happened until now, though. It should be safe, as Clippy and I have been using it for months and there are no open issues for is :)
---
changelog: Move `index_refutable_slice` to `pedantic` (Now warn-by-default)
[#9975](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9975)
Don't lint `unnecessary_cast` in mixed macro context
fixes#9960
Time to start making a dent in this onslaught.
changelog: `unnecessary_cast`: Don't lint when the identifiers context differs from its binding's context for locals
Add allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args config
Implement `allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args` config param to change the behavior of the `uninlined_format_args` lint. Now it is a part of `style` per [Zulip chat](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/.60uninlined_format_args.60.20category), and won't propose inlining in case of a mixed usage, e.g. `print!("{} {}", var, 1+2)`. If the user sets `allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args` config param to `false`, the lint would behave like it did before -- proposing to inline args even in the mixed case.
---
changelog: [`uninlined_format_args`]: Added a new config `allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args` to allow the lint, if only some arguments can be inlined
[#9865](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9865)
changelog: Moved [`uninlined_format_args`] to `style` (Now warn-by-default)
[#9865](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/9865)
Migrate from highfive to triagebot
This migrates this repository from using the highfive bot to using triagebot (aka rustbot).
This should not be merged without coordinating the removal of the highfive webhook and/or merging https://github.com/rust-lang/highfive/pull/435.
changelog: none
Implement `allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args` config param to change the behavior of the `uninlined_format_args` lint. Now it is a part of `style`, and won't propose inlining in case of a mixed usage, e.g. `print!("{} {}", var, 1+2)`. If the user sets allow-mixed-uninlined-format-args config param to `false`, then it would behave like before, proposing to inline args even in the mixed case.
Allow using `clippy::msrv` as an outer attribute
changelog: Allow specifying `#[clippy::msrv]` as an outer attribute
Probably not too useful to clippy users, but it makes the MSRV tests slightly cleaner
Re-enable `uninlined_format_args` on multiline `format!`
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9719
There was an issue with the code suggestion which can be sometimes completely broken (fortunately when applied it's valid), so we do not show it.
changelog: [`uninlined_format_args`] re-enable for multiline format expression, but do not show the literal code suggestion in those cases
Lint unnecessary safety comments
changelog: [`unnecessary_safety_comment`]: Add unnecessary safety comment lint
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/7954
This does not necessarily catch all occurences, as doing so would require checking all expressions in the entire source which seems rather expensive. Instead what the lint does is it checks items, statements and the tail expression of blocks for safety comments, then checks if those comments are necessary or not, then linting for the unnecessary ones.
I kept the tests in one file to check that the lints do not clash with each other.
Add `clippy_utils::msrv::Msrv` to keep track of the current MSRV
changelog: Fix the scoping of the `#![clippy::msrv]` attribute
Fixes#6920
r? `@Jarcho`
Fix [`unnecessary_lazy_eval`] when type has significant drop
fix for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9427#issuecomment-1295742590
However current implementation gives too many false positive, rending the lint almost useless.
I don't know what's the best way to check if a type has a "significant" drop (in the common meaning, not the internal rustc one, for example Option<(u8, u8)> should not be considered significant)
changelog: Fix [`unnecessary_lazy_eval`] when type has significant drop
Fix#9771 (`unnecessary_to_owned` false positive)
Fixes#9771
In that issue's example(s), the lint tried to add a `&` to a value, which implicitly changed the type of a field to a reference. The fix is to add the reference to `receiver_ty` (the type of the receiver of the `to_owned`-like method), before passing `receiver_ty` to `can_change_type`. `can_change_type` properly rejects the modified `receiver_ty`.
cc: `@mikerite` just because I think he was the author of `can_change_type`.
changelog: fix `unnecessary_to_owned` false positive which implicitly tried to change the type of a field to a reference
Fix `redundant_closure_for_method_calls` suggestion
Fixes#7746. The issue turns out to be more general than raw pointers. The `redundant_closure_for_method_calls` lint produces incorrect suggestions when the method is associated with a type that must be enclosed in angle brackets or must be written with generic arguments substituted. For example:
```rust
fn main() {
// Clippy's suggestion: [T; N]::as_slice
// Correct suggestion: <[u8; 3]>::as_slice
let array_opt: Option<&[u8; 3]> = Some(&[4, 8, 7]);
array_opt.map(|a| a.as_slice());
// Clippy's suggestion: [T]::len
// Correct suggestion: <[u8]>::len
let slice_opt: Option<&[u8]> = Some(b"slice");
slice_opt.map(|s| s.len());
// Clippy's suggestion: *const T::is_null
// Correct suggestion: <*const usize>::is_null
let ptr_opt: Option<*const usize> = Some(&487);
ptr_opt.map(|p| p.is_null());
// Clippy's suggestion: dyn TestTrait::method_on_dyn
// Correct suggestion: <dyn TestTrait>::method_on_dyn
let test_struct = TestStruct {};
let dyn_opt: Option<&dyn TestTrait> = Some(&test_struct);
dyn_opt.map(|d| d.method_on_dyn());
}
// For the trait object example:
trait TestTrait {}
struct TestStruct {}
impl TestTrait for TestStruct {}
impl dyn TestTrait + '_ {
fn method_on_dyn(&self) -> bool {
false
}
}
```
The issue also affects references and tuples, though I had to patch the standard library with non-trait methods for those types to test that. Just in case, I also included handling for `!`, since it appeared to be possible to call methods on it with angle brackets. I just couldn't verify the resulting suggestion, since dead-code analysis eliminates the code first.
This is my first exposure to Rust compiler internals, so please let me know if I'm taking the wrong approach here!
changelog: [`redundant_closure_for_method_calls`]: add angle brackets and substitute generic arguments in suggestion when needed
Add new lint [`misnamed-getters`]
```
changelog: Add new lint [`misnamed-getters`]
```
Closes#9769
The current lint matches all methods with a body of just one expression under the form `(&mut?)? <expr>.field` where field doesn't match the name of the method but there is a field of the same type in `<expr>` that matches the name. This allows matching nested structs, for example for newtype wrappers. This may cast the net a bit too wide and cause false positives. I'll run [clippy_lint_tester](https://github.com/mikerite/clippy_lint_tester) on the top crates to see how frequently false positives happen.
There also may be room for improvement by checking that the replacement field would work taking into account implementations of `Deref` and `DerefMut` even if the types don't exactly match but I don't know yet how this could be done.
