Fix `items_after_test_module`: Ignore imported modules
Fixes#10713. It does a little bit of dark magic, but intention is what really counts.
changelog:[`items_after_test_module`]: Ignore imported modules (`mod foo;`) with no body.
Add configuration for `semicolon_block` lints
Does exactly what it says on the tin, suggests moving a block's final semicolon inside if it's multiline and outside if it's singleline.
I don't really like how this is implemented so I'm not too sure if this is ready yet. Alas, it might be ok.
---
fixes#10654
changelog: Enhancement: [`semicolon_inside_block`]: Added `semicolon-inside-block-ignore-singleline` as a new config value.
[#10656](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10656)
changelog: Enhancement: [`semicolon_outside_block`]: Added `semicolon-outside-block-ignore-multiline` as a new config value.
[#10656](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10656)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
Improve the help message + add a help span
This would close#10410, because it applies the general consensus achieved in that issue (that replacing `let _ = ...` to `_ = ...` doesn't present any benefits).
I also added a little help message span.
changelog:[`let_underscore_untyped`]: Fix the help message confusion + add a help message span.
check for `..` pattern in `redundant_pattern_matching`
The `redundant_pattern_matching` lint currently checks for `if let Some(_) = ...`, but not for `if let Some(..) = ...`.
This PR makes sure to also check for the `..` pattern in tuple structs.
It also found one such instance in clippy itself so that shows it's worth checking for this pattern as well 😅
changelog: [`redundant_pattern_matching`]: check for `..` pattern in tuple structs
Fix false positive in `allow_attributes`
This would emit a warning if used in a proc-macro with the feature `lint_reasons` enabled. This is now fixed.
changelog: [`allow_attributes`]: Don't lint if in external macro
Ignore `shadow` warns in code from macro expansions
This PR fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9757
I am in doubt if just looking for `pat.span.from_expansion()` would be sufficient instead of looking for both `pat.span.desugaring_kind().is_some()` or `pat.span.from_expansion()`. The tests (including the new one) passes if I leave the only `if pat.span.from_expansion()`. Any feedbacks?
Also, this is my first PR here, sorry for anything and thanks for the patience!
changelog: [`shadow_same`, `shadow_reuse`, `shadow_unrelated`]: avoiding warns in macro-generated code
New lint: detect `if` expressions with simple boolean assignments to the same target
Closes#10430
changelog: [`needless_bool_assign`] new lint to detect simple boolean assignment to the same target in `if` branches
Don't suggest `suboptimal_flops` unavailable in nostd
Fixes#10634
changelog: Enhancement: [`suboptimal_flops`]: Do not suggest `{f32,f64}::abs()` or `{f32,f64}::mul_add()` in a `no_std`-environment.
Add `items_after_test_module` lint
Resolves task *3* of #10506, alongside *1* resolved at #10543 in an effort to help standarize a little bit more testing modules.
---
changelog:[`items_after_test_module`]: Added the lint.
make [`len_zero`] lint not spanning over parenthesis
sorry it should be a quick fix but I was caught up by other stuffs last couple weeks 🤦♂️
---
fixes: #10529
changelog: make [`len_zero`] lint not spanning over parenthesis
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
