Fix typo in comment
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]
- \[ ] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[ ] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[ ] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[ ] 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
`large_stack_frames`: print total size and largest component.
Instead of just saying “this function's stack frame is big”, report:
* the (presumed) size of the frame
* the size and type of the largest local contributing to that size
* the configurable limit that was exceeded (once)
Known issues:
* The lint may report an over-estimate because codegen may be able to overlap some of these locals. However, that already affected whether the lint fired at all; I believe this change is still an improvement because it gives the user much more actionable information about _why_ the lint fired.
* Please tell me a better way to determine whether a local has a variable name.
changelog: [`large_stack_frames`]: print total size and largest component.
Instead of just saying “this function's stack frame is big”, report:
* the (presumed) size of the frame
* the size and type of the largest local contributing to that size
* the configurable limit that was exceeded (once)
allow [`manual_unwrap_or_default`] in const function
closes: #12568
---
changelog: allow [`manual_unwrap_or_default`] in const function
This is a small fix, I was originally decided to fix it along with `#12568` but there are some problems needs to be addressed (which is why my branch is called `issue12569` 😆 ), so I decide to open a separated PR to fix them one at a time.
Rename `Inherited` -> `TypeckRootCtxt`
`Inherited` is a confusing name. Rename it to `TypeckRootCtxt`.
I don't think this needs a type MCP or anything since it's not nearly as pervasive as `FnCtxt` , for example.
r? `@lcnr` `@oli-obk`
It turns out there is a bit of a circular dependency - I cannot add
anything to `core` because Clippy fails, and I can't actually add
correct Clippy implementations without new implementations from `core`.
Change some of the Clippy stubs from `unimplemented!` to success values
and leave a FIXME in their place to mitigate this.
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122587>
RFC: Document Clippy's teams and team duties
First the big announcement:
**We want to add a new subteam for regular contributors to give them triage rights.**
---
This PR adds a new section to the book which describes the Clippy and Clippy-Contributor teams, with their duties and membership requirements. This is just an initial draft, that outlines what, I think, their responsibilities should be.
I hope everyone in the team is okay with me posting this directly to GitHub. I think a PR makes collaboration a bit easier.
[🖼️ Rendered 🖼️](https://github.com/xFrednet/rust-clippy/blob/add-team-docs/book/src/development/the_team.md)
---
Once we've decided on this document, I'll create a PR to add the new team on GitHub. As part of this, we'll also reach out to some active contributors, to ask if they would like to join the new team.
---
cc: `@rust-lang/clippy`
cc: #6627
changelog: none
r? `@flip1995`
Remove `unwrap` from `match_trait_method`
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that caused #12366.
Note: author (`@m-rph)` and `@GuillaumeGomez` couldn't replicate #12366.
changelog:none
r? `@blyxyas`
Change applicability of `assigning_clones` to `Unspecified`
Before we deal with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12473 and the borrow checker errors, I think that it would be better to downgrade this lint, since it can break code.
changelog: Change the applicability of `assigning_clones` to `Unspecified`
r? `@blyxyas`
[`let_and_return`]: avoid linting when code between last stmt and return expr is cfg'd out
Fixes#9150
This moves `span_contains_cfg` to utils and starts using it in `let_and_return` as well.
changelog: [`let_and_return`]: avoid linting when code between the last statement and the final return expression is `#[cfg]`ed out
fix: `suspicious_else_formatting` false positive when else is included …
This PR addresses an issue where invalid suggestions are generated for `if-else` formatting if comments contain the keyword `else`.
The root of the problem is identified [here](95c62ffae9/clippy_lints/src/formatting.rs (L217)). Specifically, when a comment contains the word `else`, the lint mistakenly interprets it as part of an `if-else` clause. This misinterpretation leads to an incorrect splitting of the snippet, resulting in erroneous suggestions.
fixes: #12497
changelog: [`suspicious_else_formatting`]: Fixes invalid suggestions when comments include word else
Remove unnecessary dot in the 'unconditional recursion' lint description
I don't think such changes should be reflected in the changelog.
changelog: none
Unused_IO_amount relies on `match_trait_method` in order to match
trait methods that exist in Tokio traits as the corresponding symbols don't exist.
With this commit we remove the unwrap that may have caused 12366.
Note: author (@m-rph) and @GuillaumeGomez couldn't replicate 12366.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
`useless_asref`: do not lint `.as_ref().map(Arc::clone)`
This applies to `Arc`, `Rc`, and their weak variants. Using `.clone()` would be less idiomatic.
This follows the discussion in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12528#issuecomment-2014444305>.
changelog: [`useless_asref`]: do not lint `.as_ref().map(Arc::clone)` and similar
don't lint [`mixed_attributes_style`] when mixing docs and other attrs
fixes: #12435fixes: #12436fixes: #12530
---
changelog: don't lint [`mixed_attributes_style`] when mixing different kind of attrs; and move it to late pass;
don't lint [`mixed_attributes_style`] when mixing docs and other attrs
add test files for issue #12436
move [`mixed_attributes_style`] to `LateLintPass` to enable global `allow`
stop [`mixed_attributes_style`] from linting on different attributes
add `@compile-flags` to [`mixed_attributes_style`]'s test;
turns out not linting in test mod is not a FN.
Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Timo <30553356+y21@users.noreply.github.com>
move [`mixed_attributes_style`] to late pass and stop it from linting on different kind of attributes
