Result<T, E> has an `ok()` method that adapts a Result<T,E> into an Option<T>.
It's possible to get around this adapter by writing Result<T,E>.map_or(None, Some).
This lint is implemented as a new variant of the existing
[`option_map_none` lint](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/2128)
Improve docs for option_option
Hint about using tri-state enums to replace legitimate uses of `Option<Option<_>>`
changelog: The docs for `option_option` now suggest using a tri-state enum
useless Rc<Rc<T>>, Rc<Box<T>>, Rc<&T>, Box<&T>
refers to #2394
changelog: Add lints for Rc<Rc<T>> and Rc<Box<T>> and Rc<&T>, Box<&T>
this is based on top of another change #5310 so probably should go after that one.
Downgrade option_option to pedantic
Based on a search of my work codebase (\>500k lines) for `Option<Option<`, it looks like a bunch of reasonable uses to me. The documented motivation for this lint is:
> an optional optional value is logically the same thing as an optional value but has an unneeded extra level of wrapping
which seems a bit bogus in practice. For example a typical usage would look like:
```rust
let mut host: Option<String> = None;
let mut port: Option<i32> = None;
let mut payload: Option<Option<String>> = None;
for each field {
match field.name {
"host" => host = Some(...),
"port" => port = Some(...),
"payload" => payload = Some(...), // can be null or string
_ => return error,
}
}
let host = host.ok_or(...)?;
let port = port.ok_or(...)?;
let payload = payload.ok_or(...)?;
do_thing(host, port, payload)
```
This lint seems to fit right in with the pedantic group; I don't think linting on occurrences of `Option<Option<T>>` by default is justified.
---
changelog: Remove option_option from default set of enabled lints
