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
```
New lint [`redundant_at_rest_pattern`]
Closes#11011
It's always a great feeling when a new lint triggers on clippy itself 😄
changelog: New lint [`redundant_at_rest_pattern`]
suggests `is_some_and` over `map().unwrap`
changelog: Enhancement: [`option_map_unwrap_or`] now considers the [`msrv`] config when creating the suggestion.
* modified option_map_unwrap_or lint to recognise when an `Option<T>` is mapped to an `Option<bool>` with false being used when `None` is detected; suggests the use of `is_some_and` instead
* msrv is set to 1.70.0 for this lint; when `is_some_and` was stabilised
fixes#9125
[`question_mark`]: don't lint inside of `try` block
Fixes#8628.
Diff looks a bit noisy because I had to move the two functions into an impl, because they now need to access the structs `try_block_depth` field to see if they're inside a try block.
changelog: [`question_mark`]: don't lint inside of `try` block
[`option_if_let_else`]: suggest `.as_ref()` if scrutinee is of type `&Option<_>`
Fixes#10729
`Option::map_or` takes ownership, so if matching on an `&Option<_>`, we need to suggest `.as_ref()` before calling `map_or` to get the same effect and to not cause a borrowck error.
changelog: [`option_if_let_else`]: suggest `.as_ref()`/`.as_mut()` if scrutinee is of type `&Option<_>`/`&mut Option<_>`
[`unused_async`]: don't lint if function is part of a trait
Fixes#10459.
We shouldn't lint if the function is part of a trait, because the user won't be able to easily remove the `async`, as this will then not match with the function signature in the trait definition
changelog: [`unused_async`]: don't lint if function is part of a trait
Check if `if` conditions always evaluate to true in `never_loop`
This fixes the example provided in #11004, but it shouldn't be closed as this is still an issue on like
```rust
let x = true;
if x { /* etc */ }`
```
This also makes `clippy_utils::consts::constant` handle `ConstBlock` and `DropTemps`.
changelog: [`never_loop`]: Check if `if` conditions always evaluate to true
Lint `mem_forget` if any fields are `Drop`
Closes#9298
I think this way of doing it (`needs_drop`) should be fine.
---
changelog: Enhancement: [`mem_forget`]: Now lints on types with fields that implement `Drop`
[#10996](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10996)
[`format_push_string`]: look through `match` and `if` expressions
Closes#9493.
changelog: [`format_push_string`]: look through `match` and `if` expressions
[`get_unwrap`]: include a borrow in the suggestion if argument is not an integer literal
Fixes#9909
I have to say, I don't really understand what the previous logic was trying to do, but this fixes the linked bug.
It was checking if the argument passed to `.get()` can be parsed as a usize (i.e. if it's an integer literal, probably?), and if not, it wouldn't include a borrow? I don't know how we came to that conclusion, but that logic doesn't work:
```rs
let slice = &[1, 2];
let _r: &i32 = slice.get({ 1 }).unwrap();
// previous suggestion: slice[{ 1 }]
// the suggestion should be: &slice[{ 1 }]
```
Here the argument passed to it isn't an integer literal, but it should still include a borrow, because it would otherwise change the type from `&i32` to `i32`.
The exception is that if the parent of the `get().unwrap()` expr is a dereference or a method call or the like, we don't need an explicit borrow because it's automatically inserted by the compiler
changelog: [`get_unwrap`]: include a borrow in the suggestion if argument is not an integer literal
Don't lint [`iter_nth_zero`] in `next`
Closes#9820
This also *slightlyy* modifies the output of `iter_nth`, as I noticed the types' names weren't in backticks
changelog: [`iter_nth_zero`]: No longer lints in implementations of `Iterator::next`
