Fix ICE #3719+#3718 in lint match_ref_pats
Fixes#3719
This conveniently also fixes#3718
The ICE occurs when the match expression was a macro call, where the macro was defined in another file. Since we don't have the ability to reproduce this behavior with our UI tests (AFAIK), I couldn't add a test reproducing this ICE.. However, I added a test which is related to the ICE, to show the new behavior of the lint.
I tested it with the mscheme repo locally and the ICE didn't happen anymore.
r? @matthiaskrgr
Fix ICE #3747
I'm not sure if this was the correct approach.
I don't know if I put tests/ui/crashses/ice-3747.rs in correct place because the test always passed when I ran it with `cargo test`, even without the fix applied.
If I run that test with `env CLIPPY_TESTS=true cargo run --bin clippy-driver -- -L ./target/debug tests/ui/crashes/ice-3747.rs` then the test correctly fails without the fix applied
fixes#3747
Many people run rustfmt automatically on save. Format-dependent tests
should be marked with `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent accidental
reformatting from this. As a bonus the rest of the code can the formatted.
Make needless_range_loop not applicable to structures without iter method
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3788
Now we will start lint indexed structure only if it has known iter or iter_mut method implemented.
Don't check [print/write]_with_newline on raw strings
Some tests for #3778 and some maybe-not-the-greatest code that passes those tests!
I didn't run `fmt` because a) it doesn't seem to install on nightly for me, and b) on stable it wanted to apply formatting to over 90 files. Happy to make any tweaks though!
I suspect this contribution may require more than just tweaks. I'm still sort of new to rust so it may not be idiomatic, and the specific approach I took feels a little heavy-handed and brittle. I'm happy to make changes with some guidance, or equally happy if this gives a starting place for someone else to do it better :)
This test doesn't reproduce the ICE since it only happens, when the macro is defined in another file.
Currently we can't add tests with multiple files AFAIK
Also using the auxiliary folder didn't help
Add a lint to warn on `T: Drop` bounds
**What it does:** Checks for generics with `std::ops::Drop` as bounds.
**Why is this bad?** `Drop` bounds do not really accomplish anything.
A type may have compiler-generated drop glue without implementing the
`Drop` trait itself. The `Drop` trait also only has one method,
`Drop::drop`, and that function is by fiat not callable in user code.
So there is really no use case for using `Drop` in trait bounds.
**Known problems:** None.
**Example:**
```rust
fn foo<T: Drop>() {}
```
Fixes#3773
Both regular strings and raw strings can contain literal newlines. This commit
extends the lint to also warn about terminating strings with these.
Behaviour handling for raw strings is also moved into `check_newlines` by
passing in the `is_raw` boolean from `check_tts` as
[suggested](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/3781#pullrequestreview-204663732)
Literal `\n` characters (not a newline) in a `r"raw"` string should not
fail the lint.
This affects both write_with_newline and print_with_newline, so it is added in
both places.
I also copied a missing test case from write_with_newline over to
print_with_newline and added a note that one of those tests is supposed to
fail.
**What it does:** Checks for generics with `std::ops::Drop` as bounds.
**Why is this bad?** `Drop` bounds do not really accomplish anything.
A type may have compiler-generated drop glue without implementing the
`Drop` trait itself. The `Drop` trait also only has one method,
`Drop::drop`, and that function is by fiat not callable in user code.
So there is really no use case for using `Drop` in trait bounds.
**Known problems:** None.
**Example:**
```rust
fn foo<T: Drop>() {}
```
Fix ICE in needless_pass_by_value lint
If I understand it correctly, we were first creating a type with a
`RegionKind::ReErased` region and then deleted it again in
`util::implements_trait` with:
cx.tcx.erase_regions(&ty);
causing the type query to fail.
It looks like using `ReEmpty` works around that deletion.
Fixes#3144
Macro check for assertion_on_constants lint
The `assertion_on_constants` lint currently has following output for this code [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=6f2c9df6fc50baf847212d3b5136ee97):
```rust
macro_rules! assert_const {
($len:expr) => {
assert!($len > 0);
}
}
fn main() {
assert_const!(3);
assert_const!(-1);
}
```
```
warning: assert!(const: true) will be optimized out by the compiler
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | assert!($len > 0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
8 | assert_const!(3);
| ---------------- in this macro invocation
|
= note: #[warn(clippy::assertions_on_constants)] on by default
= help: remove it
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#assertions_on_constants
warning: assert!(const: false) should probably be replaced
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | assert!($len > 0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
9 | assert_const!(-1);
| ----------------- in this macro invocation
|
= help: use panic!() or unreachable!()
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#assertions_on_constants
```
This is contradictory. This lint should not trigger if the `assert!` is in a macro itself.
If I understand it correctly, we were first creating a type with a
`RegionKind::ReErased` region and then deleted it again in
`util::implements_trait` with:
cx.tcx.erase_regions(&ty);
causing the type query to fail.
It looks like using `ReEmpty` works around that deletion.
Fix `cast_sign_loss` false positive
This checks if the value is a non-negative constant before linting about
losing the sign.
Because the `constant` function doesn't handle const functions, we check if
the value is from a call to a `max_value` function directly. A utility method
called `get_def_path` was added to make checking for the function paths
easier.
Fixes#2728
Adding lint test for excessive LOC.
This is a WIP for #2377. Just wanted to pull in because I had a few questions:
1. Is it okay that I'm approaching this via counting by looking at each line in the snippet instead of looking at the AST tree? If there's another way to do it, I want to make sure I'm doing the correct way, but I wasn't sure since the output AST JSON doesn't seem to contain whitespace.
2. My function is definitely going to trigger the lint, so also wanted to see if there was something obvious I could do to reduce it.
3. Are the two tests fine, or is there something obvious I'm missing?
4. Obviously bigger question - am I approaching the line count correctly. Current strategy is count a line if it contains some code, so skip if it's just comments or empty.
