Fix regex lints for regex 1.9.0
regex 1.9.0 was [just released](https://blog.burntsushi.net/regex-internals/), which changes where the types are defined. Instead of updating the definitions to the ones in 1.9.0 this PR uses [`def_path_def_ids`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/clippy_utils/fn.def_path_def_ids.html) on the canonical paths so that we don't have to worry about third party crate internals
This means that it still works with older regex versions too, and will for any future layout changes. I tested it with 1.8.4 and 1.9.0
changelog: [`INVALID_REGEX`], [`TRIVIAL_REGEX`]: now works with regex 1.9.0
new lint: `read_line_without_trim`
This adds a new lint that checks for calls to `Stdin::read_line` with a reference to a string that is then attempted to parse into an integer type without first trimming it, which is always going to fail at runtime.
This is something that I've seen happen a lot to beginners, because it's easy to run into when following the example of chapter 2 in the book where it shows how to program a guessing game.
It would be nice if we could point beginners to clippy and tell them "let's see what clippy has to say" and have clippy explain to them why it fails 👀
I think this lint can later be "generalized" to work not just for `Stdin` but also any `BufRead` (which seems to be where the guarantee about the trailing newline comes from) and also, matching/comparing it to a string slice that doesn't end in a newline character (e.g. `input == "foo"` is always going to fail)
changelog: new lint: [`read_line_without_trim`]
[`useless_vec`]: add more tests and don't lint inside of macros
Closes#11084.
I realized that the fix I added in #11081 itself also causes an error in a suggestion when inside of a macro. Example:
```rs
macro_rules! x {
() => {
for _ in vec![1, 2] {}
}
}
x!();
```
Here it would suggest replacing `vec![1, 2]` with `[x!()]`, because that's what the source callsite is (reminder: it does this to get the correct span of `x!()` for code like `for _ in vec![x!()]`), but that's wrong when *inside* macros, so I decided to make it not lint if the whole loop construct is inside a macro to avoid this issue.
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: add more tests and don't lint inside of macros
r? `@Alexendoo` since these were your tests, I figured it makes most sense to assign you
Don't lint manual_let_else in cases where ? would work
Don't lint `manual_let_else` where the question mark operator `?` would be sufficient, that is, mostly in cases like:
```Rust
let v = if let Some(v) = ex { v } else { return None };
```
Also, this PR emits the `question_mark` lint for `let...else` patterns that could be written with `?` (also, only `return None` like cases).
```
changelog: [`manual_let_else`]: don't lint in cases where question_mark already lints
changelog: [`question_mark`]: lint for `let Some(...) = ex else { return None };`
```
Fixes #8755
[`useless_vec`]: use the source span for initializer
Fixes#11075.
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: use the source span for the initializer expression when inside of a macro
[`arc_with_non_send_sync`]: don't lint if type has nested type parameters
Fixes#11076
changelog: [`arc_with_non_send_sync`]: don't lint if type has nested type parameters
r? `@Manishearth`
new lint: `type_id_on_box`
Closes#7687.
A new lint that detects calling `.type_id()` on `Box<dyn Any>` (and not on the underlying `dyn Any`), which can make up for some pretty confusing bugs!
changelog: new lint: [`type_id_on_box`]
[`missing_fields_in_debug`]: make sure self type is an adt
Fixes#11063, another ICE that can only happen in core.
This lint needs the `DefId` of the implementor to get its fields, but that ICEs if the implementor does not have a `DefId` (as is the case with primitive types, e.g. `impl Debug for bool`), which is where this ICE comes from.
This PR changes the check I added in #10897 to be more... robust against `Debug` implementations we don't want to lint.
Instead of just checking if the self type is a type parameter and "special casing" one specific case we don't want to lint, we should probably rather just check that the self type is either a struct, an enum or a union and only then continue.
That prevents weird edge cases like this one that can only happen in core.
Again, I don't know if it's even possible to add a test case for this since one cannot implement `Debug` for primitive types outside of the crate that defined `Debug` (core).
I did make sure that this PR no longer ICEs on `impl<T> Debug for T` and `impl Debug for bool`.
Maybe writing such a test is possible with `#![no_core]` and then re-defining the `Debug` trait or something like that...?
changelog: [`missing_fields_in_debug`]: make sure self type is an adt (fixes an ICE in core)
r? `@Alexendoo` (reviewed the last PRs for this lint)
Add `SPEEDTEST`
In the `master` branch, we currently don't have any way to test the performance of a single lint in changes.
This PR adds `SPEEDTEST`, the environment variable which lets you do a speed test on a lint / category of tests with various configuration options.
Maybe we should merge this with `lintcheck` 🤔
See the book page for more information.
changelog:none
`let_and_return`: lint 'static lifetimes, don't lint borrows in closures
Fixes#11056
Now also ignores functions returning `'static` lifetimes, since I noticed the `stdin.lock()` example was still being linted but doesn't need to be since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93965
changelog: none
New lint [`tuple_array_conversions`]
Closes#10748
PS, the implementation is a bit ugly 😅 ~~I will likely refactor soon enough :)~~ Done :D
changelog: New lint [`tuple_array_conversions`]
Also, lint question_mark for `let...else` clauses that can be simplified to use `?`.
This lint isn't perfect as it doesn't support the unstable try blocks.
[significant_drop_tightening] Fix#10413Fix#10413
This is quite a rewrite that unfortunately took a large amount of time. I tried my best to comment what is going on to easy review but feel free to ask any question.
The problem basically is that the current algorithm is only taking into consideration single blocks which means that things like the following don't work or show unpredictable results.
```rust
let mutex = Mutex::new(1);
{
let lock = mutex.lock().unwrap();
{
let _ = *lock;
}
}
```
The solve the issue, each path that refers a lock is now being tracked individually.
```
changelog: [`significant_drop_tightening`]: Lift the restriction of only considerate single blocks
```
