Rustup
`@rust-lang/clippy,` `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo.` Could someone review this? It should be pretty straight forward since it's just a sync. I think it's also fine if either one of `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo` approves this, as these are usually not reviewed. I just want to make sure that I didn't break something obvious 🙃
It should be enough to look at the merge commit 🙃
changelog: none
changelog: move [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`] to `suspicious`
[dbg_macro] tolerates use of `dbg!` in items which have `#[cfg(test)]` attribute
fix: #8758
changelog: [dbg_macro] tolerates use of `dbg!` in items with `#[cfg(test)]` attribute
Improve "unknown field" error messages
Fixes#8806
Sample output:
```
error: error reading Clippy's configuration file `/home/smoelius/github/smoelius/rust-clippy/clippy.toml`: unknown field `foobar`, expected one of
allow-expect-in-tests enable-raw-pointer-heuristic-for-send standard-macro-braces
allow-unwrap-in-tests enforced-import-renames third-party
allowed-scripts enum-variant-name-threshold too-large-for-stack
array-size-threshold enum-variant-size-threshold too-many-arguments-threshold
avoid-breaking-exported-api literal-representation-threshold too-many-lines-threshold
await-holding-invalid-types max-fn-params-bools trivial-copy-size-limit
blacklisted-names max-include-file-size type-complexity-threshold
cargo-ignore-publish max-struct-bools unreadable-literal-lint-fractions
cognitive-complexity-threshold max-suggested-slice-pattern-length upper-case-acronyms-aggressive
cyclomatic-complexity-threshold max-trait-bounds vec-box-size-threshold
disallowed-methods msrv verbose-bit-mask-threshold
disallowed-types pass-by-value-size-limit warn-on-all-wildcard-imports
doc-valid-idents single-char-binding-names-threshold
at line 1 column 1
```
You can test this by (say) adding `foobar = 42` to Clippy's root `clippy.toml` file, and running `cargo run --bin cargo-clippy`.
Note that, to get the terminal width, this PR adds `termize` as a dependency to `cargo-clippy`. However, `termize` is also [how `rustc_errors` gets the terminal width](481db40311/compiler/rustc_errors/src/emitter.rs (L1607)). So, hopefully, this is not a dealbreaker.
r? `@xFrednet`
changelog: Enhancements: the "unknown field" error messages for config files now wraps the field names.
add suggestions to rc_clone_in_vec_init
A followup to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/8769
I also switch the order of the 2 suggestions, since the loop initialization one is probably the common case.
`@xFrednet` I'm not letting you guys rest for a minute 😅
changelog: add suggestions to [`rc_clone_in_vec_init`]
`undocumented_unsafe_blocks` does not trigger on unsafe trait impls
Closes#8505
changelog: This lint checks unsafe impls NOT from macro expansions and checks ones in macro declarations.
~~`unsafe impl`s from macro invocations don't trigger the lint for now.~~
~~This lint checks unsafe impls from/not from macro expansions~~
Don't lint `vec_init_then_push` when further extended
fixes#7071
This will still lint when a larger number of pushes are done (four currently). The exact number could be debated, but this is more readable then a sequence of pushes so it shouldn't be too large.
changelog: Don't lint `vec_init_then_push` when further extended.
changelog: Remove `mut` binding from `vec_init_then_push` when possible.
Add EarlyBinder
Chalk has no concept of `Param` (e0ade19d13/chalk-ir/src/lib.rs (L579)) or `ReEarlyBound` (e0ade19d13/chalk-ir/src/lib.rs (L1308)). Everything is just "bound" - the equivalent of rustc's late-bound. It's not completely clear yet whether to move everything to the same time of binder in rustc or add `Param` and `ReEarlyBound` in Chalk.
Either way, tracking when we have or haven't already substituted out these in rustc can be helpful.
As a first step, I'm just adding a `EarlyBinder` newtype that is required to call `subst`. I also add a couple "transparent" `bound_*` wrappers around a couple query that are often immediately substituted.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Fix redundant_allocation warning for Rc<Box<str>>
changelog: [`redundant_allocation`] Fixes#8604
Fixes false positives where a fat pointer with `str` type was made thin by another allocation, but that thinning allocation was marked as redundant
This PR has implemented improved representation.
- Use "lib" instead of "lifb"
- Use "triggered" instead of "triggere"
- Use "blacklisted_name" instead of "blackisted_name"
- Use "stabilization" instead of "stabilisation"
- Use "behavior" instead of "behaviour"
- Use "target" instead of "tartet"
- Use "checked_add" instead of "chcked_add"
- Use "anti-pattern" instead of "antipattern"
- Use "suggestion" instead of "suggesttion"
- Use "example" instead of "exampel"
- Use "Cheat Sheet" instead of "Cheatsheet"
New lint: [`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`]
Introduces a new lint, [`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`].
See: #1781 (doesn't close it though).
changelog: add lint [`derive_partial_eq_without_eq`]
Replace `#[allow]` with `#[expect]` in Clippy
Hey `@rust-lang/clippy,` `@Alexendoo,` `@dswij,` I'm currently working on the expect attribute as defined in [Rust RFC 2383](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2383-lint-reasons.html). With that, an `#[allow]` attribute can be replaced with a `#[expect]` attribute that suppresses the lint, but also emits a warning, if the lint isn't emitted in the expected scope.
With this PR I would like to test the attribute on a project scale and Clippy obviously came to mind. This PR replaces (almost) all `#[allow]` attributes in `clippy_utils` and `clippy_lints` with the `#[expect]` attribute. I was also able to remove some allows since, the related FPs have been fixed 🎉.
My question is now, are there any concerns regarding this? It's still okay to add normal `#[allow]` attributes, I see the need to nit-pick about that in new PRs, unless it's actually a FP. Also, I would not recommend using `#[expect]` in tests, as changes to a lint could the trigger the expect attribute in other files.
Additionally, I've noticed that Clippy has a bunch of `#[allow(clippy::too_many_lines)]` attributes. Should we maybe allow the lint all together or increase the threshold setting? To me, it seems like we mostly just ignore it in our code. 😅🙃
---
changelog: none
r? `@flip1995` (I've requested you for now, since you're also helping with reviewing the expect implementation. You are welcome to delegate this PR, even if it should be a simple review 🙃 )
