`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.
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 🙃 )
Address `unnecessary_to_owned` false positive
My proposed fix for #8759 is to revise the conditions that delineate `redundant_clone` and `unnecessary_to_owned`:
```rust
// Only flag cases satisfying at least one of the following three conditions:
// * the referent and receiver types are distinct
// * the referent/receiver type is a copyable array
// * the method is `Cow::into_owned`
// This restriction is to ensure there is no overlap between `redundant_clone` and this
// lint. It also avoids the following false positive:
// https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8759
// Arrays are a bit of a corner case. Non-copyable arrays are handled by
// `redundant_clone`, but copyable arrays are not.
```
This change causes a few cases that were previously flagged by `unnecessary_to_owned` to no longer be flagged. But one could argue those cases would be better handled by `redundant_clone`.
Closes#8759
changelog: none
Support negative ints in manual_range_contains
fixes: #8721
changelog: Fixes issue where ranges containing ints with different signs would be
incorrect due to comparing as unsigned.
Fix `cast_lossless` to avoid warning on `usize` to `f64` conversion.
Previously, the `cast_lossless` lint would issue a warning on code that
converted a `usize` value to `f64`, on 32-bit targets.
`usize` to `f64` is a lossless cast on 32-bit targets, however there is
no corresponding `f64::from` that takes a `usize`, so `cast_lossless`'s
suggested replacement does not compile.
This PR disables the lint in the case of casting from `usize` or `isize`.
Fixes#3689.
changelog: [`cast_lossless`] no longer gives wrong suggestion on usize,isize->f64
Lint `empty_lint_after_outer_attr` on argumentless macros
Reverts the change from 034c81b761 as it's no longer needed. The test is left just in case. Original issue is #2475.
changelog: Lint `empty_lint_after_outer_attr` on argumentless macros again
Those lints are trait_duplication_in_bounds and
type_repetition_in_bounds. I don't think those can be fixed on the
Clippy side alone, but need changes in the compiler. So let's move them
to nursery to get the sync through and then fix them on the rustc side.
Also adds a regression test that has to be fixed before they can be
moved back to pedantic.
Easier readability for `needless_late_init` message
Closes#8530
Updated the lint to use a `MultiSpan`, showing where the `let` statement was first used and where the initialisation statement was done, as in the format described, for easier readability.
Was wondering why, when pushing the span label for the initialisation statement, that sometimes the prior statement above the initialisation statement gets pulled into the output as well - any insight is appreciated!
---
changelog: [`needless_late_init`]: Now shows the `let` statement where it was first initialized
[FP] identity_op in front of if
fix#8724
changelog: FP: [`identity_op`]: is now allowed in front of if statements, blocks and other expressions where the suggestion would be invalid.
Resolved simular problems with blocks, mathces, and loops.
identity_op always does NOT suggest reducing `0 + if b { 1 } else { 2 } + 3` into `if b { 1 } else { 2 } + 3` even in the case that the expression is in `f(expr)` or `let x = expr;` for now.
