Fixes#10609: Adds lint to detect construction of unit struct using `default`
Using `default` to construct a unit struct increases code complexity and adds a function call. This can be avoided by simply removing the call to `default` and simply construct by name.
changelog: [`default_constructed_unit_structs`]: detects construction of unit structs using `default`
fixes#10609
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Fix `items_after_test_module`: Ignore imported modules
Fixes#10713. It does a little bit of dark magic, but intention is what really counts.
changelog:[`items_after_test_module`]: Ignore imported modules (`mod foo;`) with no body.
Using `default` to construct a unit struct increases code complexity and
adds a function call. This can be avoided by simply removing the call to
`default` and simply construct by name.
Add configuration for `semicolon_block` lints
Does exactly what it says on the tin, suggests moving a block's final semicolon inside if it's multiline and outside if it's singleline.
I don't really like how this is implemented so I'm not too sure if this is ready yet. Alas, it might be ok.
---
fixes#10654
changelog: Enhancement: [`semicolon_inside_block`]: Added `semicolon-inside-block-ignore-singleline` as a new config value.
[#10656](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10656)
changelog: Enhancement: [`semicolon_outside_block`]: Added `semicolon-outside-block-ignore-multiline` as a new config value.
[#10656](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10656)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
Switch to `EarlyBinder` for `explicit_item_bounds`
Part of the work to finish https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105779.
This PR adds `EarlyBinder` to the return type of the `explicit_item_bounds` query and removes `bound_explicit_item_bounds`.
r? `@compiler-errors` (hope it's okay to request you, since you reviewed #110299 and #110498😃)
Improve the help message + add a help span
This would close#10410, because it applies the general consensus achieved in that issue (that replacing `let _ = ...` to `_ = ...` doesn't present any benefits).
I also added a little help message span.
changelog:[`let_underscore_untyped`]: Fix the help message confusion + add a help message span.
check for `..` pattern in `redundant_pattern_matching`
The `redundant_pattern_matching` lint currently checks for `if let Some(_) = ...`, but not for `if let Some(..) = ...`.
This PR makes sure to also check for the `..` pattern in tuple structs.
It also found one such instance in clippy itself so that shows it's worth checking for this pattern as well 😅
changelog: [`redundant_pattern_matching`]: check for `..` pattern in tuple structs
Fix false positive in `allow_attributes`
This would emit a warning if used in a proc-macro with the feature `lint_reasons` enabled. This is now fixed.
changelog: [`allow_attributes`]: Don't lint if in external macro
Ignore `shadow` warns in code from macro expansions
This PR fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9757
I am in doubt if just looking for `pat.span.from_expansion()` would be sufficient instead of looking for both `pat.span.desugaring_kind().is_some()` or `pat.span.from_expansion()`. The tests (including the new one) passes if I leave the only `if pat.span.from_expansion()`. Any feedbacks?
Also, this is my first PR here, sorry for anything and thanks for the patience!
changelog: [`shadow_same`, `shadow_reuse`, `shadow_unrelated`]: avoiding warns in macro-generated code
New lint: detect `if` expressions with simple boolean assignments to the same target
Closes#10430
changelog: [`needless_bool_assign`] new lint to detect simple boolean assignment to the same target in `if` branches
Run various queries from other queries instead of explicitly in phases
These are just legacy leftovers from when rustc didn't have a query system. While there are more cleanups of this sort that can be done here, I want to land them in smaller steps.
This phased order of query invocations was already a lie, as any query that looks at types (e.g. the wf checks run before) can invoke e.g. const eval which invokes borrowck, which invokes typeck, ...
Don't suggest `suboptimal_flops` unavailable in nostd
Fixes#10634
changelog: Enhancement: [`suboptimal_flops`]: Do not suggest `{f32,f64}::abs()` or `{f32,f64}::mul_add()` in a `no_std`-environment.
