Commit graph

14891 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jason Newcomb
e5507390b7 Disable incremental compilation on CI 2022-08-28 19:22:46 -04:00
Jason Newcomb
9790a3291b Fixes for latest nightly 2022-08-28 06:44:22 -04:00
Jason Newcomb
278b0920d8 Bump nightly version -> 2022-08-27 2022-08-28 06:44:22 -04:00
Jason Newcomb
3ad398d9b0 Merge branch 'master' into rustup 2022-08-28 06:44:13 -04:00
bors
8d9da4d7c7 Auto merge of #9276 - dswij:9164, r=flip1995
Ignore `match_like_matches_macro` when there is comment

Closes #9164

changelog: [`match_like_matches_macro`] is ignored when there is some comment inside the match block.

Also add `span_contains_comment` util to check if given span contains comments.
2022-08-28 07:08:18 +00:00
bors
2d4d8e16cd Auto merge of #8984 - xanathar:pr/suspicious_to_owned, r=llogiq
Implemented `suspicious_to_owned` lint to check if `to_owned` is called on a `Cow`

changelog: Add lint ``[`suspicious_to_owned`]``

-----------------
Hi,
posting this unsolicited PR as I've been burned by this issue :)
Being unsolicited, feel free to reject it or reassign a different lint level etc.

This lint checks whether `to_owned` is called on `Cow<'_, _>`. This is done because `to_owned` is very similarly named to `into_owned`, but the effect of calling those two methods is completely different (one makes the `Cow::Borrowed` into a `Cow::Owned`, the other just clones the `Cow`). If the cow is then passed to code for which the type is not checked (e.g. generics, closures, etc.) it might slip through and if the cow data is coming from an unsafe context there is the potential for accidentally cause undefined behavior.
Even if not falling into this painful case, there's really no reason to call `to_owned` on a `Cow` other than confusing people reading the code: either `into_owned` or `clone` should be called.

Note that this overlaps perfectly with `implicit_clone` as a warning, but `implicit_clone` is classified pedantic (while the consequences for `Cow` might be of a wider blast radius than just pedantry); given the overlap, I set-up the lint so that if `suspicious_to_owned` triggers `implicit_clone` will not trigger. I'm not 100% sure this is done in the correct way (I tried to copy what other lints were doing) so please provide feedback on it if it isn't.

### Checklist

- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
2022-08-27 17:38:40 +00:00
dswij
b07d72b69e Ignore when there is comment 2022-08-28 00:07:00 +08:00
dswij
51e9113c60 Add span_contains_comments util 2022-08-28 00:07:00 +08:00
bors
be8bd60000 Auto merge of #9381 - lukaslueg:issue9361, r=dswij
Don't lint `needless_return` if `return` has attrs

Fixes #9361

The lint used to have a mechanic to allow `cfg`-attrs on naked `return`-statements. This was well-intentioned, yet we can have any kind of attribute, e.g. `allow`, `expect` or even custom `derive`. So the mechanic was simply removed. We now never lint on a naked `return`-statement that has attributes on it.

Turns out that the ui-test had a Catch22 in it: In `check_expect()` the `#[expect(clippy::needless_return)]` is an attribute on the `return` statement that can and will be rustfixed away without side effects. But any other attribute would also have been removed, which is what #9361 is about. The test proved the wrong thing. Removed the test, the body is tested elsewhere as well.

changelog: Ignore [`needless_return`] on `return`s with attrs
2022-08-27 08:37:29 +00:00
Marco Mastropaolo
de028e2fb9 Implemented suspicious_to_owned lint to check if to_owned is called on a Cow.
This is done because `to_owned` is very similarly named to `into_owned`, but the
effect of calling those two methods is completely different. This creates
confusion (stemming from the ambiguity of the 'owned' term in the context of
`Cow`s) and might not be what the writer intended.
2022-08-26 17:41:17 -07:00
Lukas Lueg
fe93b8d001 Don't lint needless_return if return has attrs
Fixes #9361
2022-08-26 19:06:07 +02:00
bors
602bec26b0 Auto merge of #9374 - sk1p:patch-1, r=Jarcho
uninit_vec: Vec::spare_capacity_mut is stable

Quick documentation fix: `Vec::spare_capacity_mut` no longer needs nightly.

changelog: none
2022-08-26 13:15:58 +00:00
bors
21f103abcc Auto merge of #9379 - royrustdev:multi_assignments, r=llogiq
new lint

This fixes #6576

If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.

- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`

---

changelog: add [`multi_assignments`] lint
2022-08-26 12:05:57 +00:00
royrustdev
fb7dffeac9 add multi_assignments lint 2022-08-26 17:05:52 +05:30
Alexander Clausen
61aa4efbf1
uninit_vec: Vec::spare_capacity_mut is stable
Quick documentation fix: `Vec::spare_capacity_mut` no longer needs nightly.
2022-08-25 14:10:55 +02:00
Yuki Okushi
2cdc54d265 Rollup merge of #99332 - jyn514:stabilize-label-break-value, r=petrochenkov
Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`

See the stabilization report in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1186213313.
2022-08-25 08:50:54 +09:00
bors
79a439a48a Auto merge of #9370 - mikerite:20220824_ty_contains, r=Jarcho
Replace `contains_ty(..)` with `Ty::contains(..)`

This removes some code we don't need and the method syntax is
also more readable IMO.

changelog: none
2022-08-24 13:34:32 +00:00
Michael Wright
a0afbdfbec Replace contains_ty(..) with Ty::contains(..)
This removes some code we don't need and the method syntax is
also more readable IMO.
2022-08-24 08:11:29 +02:00
Joshua Nelson
345c42a2d6 Stabilize #![feature(label_break_value)]
# Stabilization proposal

The feature was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now).
There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`.

There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed).
1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422235234
2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422281176
3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450050630

Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided:
- A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422502014
- A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-427628251. This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize).
- Several examples by JohnBSmith: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-434651395
- Several examples by Centril: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-440154733
- An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-443557569
- Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1184213006

Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450246249

nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems.
joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-451685983) but there are no open RFCs,
and the design space seems rather speculative.

joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-632960804

withoutboats has regrettably left the language team.

joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1111269353

[issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+

 ## Report

+ Feature gate:
    - d695a497bb/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs
+ Diagnostics:
    - 6b2d3d5f3c/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs (L2629)
    - f65bf0b2bb/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs (L749)
    - f65bf0b2bb/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs (L1001)
    - 111df9e6ed/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs (L254)
    - d695a497bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L2079)
    - d695a497bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L1569)
+ Tests:
    - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs
    - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs
    - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs
    - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs
    - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs

 ## Interactions with other features

Labels follow the hygiene of local variables.

label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks:
```rust
let _: Result<(), ()> = try {
    'foo: {
        Err(())?;
        break 'foo;
    }
};
```

label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks:
```rust
'a: {
    || break 'a
    //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a`
    //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure
}
```

label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]:
```rust
fn labeled_match() {
    match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here
        _ => {}
    }
}

macro_rules! m {
    ($b:block) => {
        'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
        unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
        |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
    }
}

fn foo() {
    m!({});
}
```

[_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html
[_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
2022-08-23 21:14:12 -05:00
bors
b33002d5ff Auto merge of #9366 - Alexendoo:manual_string_new, r=xFrednet
Rename `manual_empty_string_creation` and move to pedantic

Renames it to `manual_string_new` and moves it to the pedantic category

Pedantic because it's a fairly minor style change but could be very noisy

changelog: *doesn't need its own entry, but remember to s/manual_empty_string_creation/manual_string_new/ the changelog entry for #9295*

r? `@xFrednet` to get it in before the upcoming sync as this isn't a `cargo dev rename_lint` style rename
2022-08-23 21:00:03 +00:00
Alex Macleod
2cb5318e97 Rename manual_empty_string_creation and move to pedantic 2022-08-23 14:19:46 +00:00
Nicholas Nethercote
06d7119f40 Remove the symbol from ast::LitKind::Err.
Because it's never used meaningfully.
2022-08-23 16:56:24 +10:00
bors
5735a3bef6 Auto merge of #9259 - smoelius:fix-9256, r=llogiq
Fix `to_string_in_format_args` false positive

Fix #9256

changelog: none
2022-08-22 10:44:41 +00:00
Samuel E. Moelius III
0bc26c811c needed_ref -> needs_ref 2022-08-21 19:38:09 +00:00
Samuel E. Moelius III
687fcf14c4 Fix to_string_in_format_args false positive 2022-08-21 19:38:09 +00:00
bors
cc637bacfa Auto merge of #9092 - tamaroning:fix-needless-match, r=llogiq
Fix false positives of needless_match

closes: #9084
made needless_match take into account arm in the form of `_ if => ...`

changelog: none
2022-08-21 13:22:21 +00:00
bors
e19a05cbb3 Auto merge of #8992 - kyoto7250:fix_8753, r=flip1995
feat(fix): Do not lint if the target code is inside a loop

close #8753

we consider the following code.

```rust
fn main() {
    let vec = vec![1];
    let w: Vec<usize> = vec.iter().map(|i| i * i).collect();  // <- once.

    for i in 0..2 {
        let _ = w.contains(&i);
    }
}
```

and the clippy will issue the following warning.

```rust
warning: avoid using `collect()` when not needed
 --> src/main.rs:3:51
  |
3 |     let w: Vec<usize> = vec.iter().map(|i| i * i).collect();
  |                                                   ^^^^^^^
...
6 |         let _ = w.contains(&i);
  |                 -------------- the iterator could be used here instead
  |
  = note: `#[warn(clippy::needless_collect)]` on by default
  = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_collect
help: check if the original Iterator contains an element instead of collecting then checking
  |
3 ~
4 |
5 |     for i in 0..2 {
6 ~         let _ = vec.iter().map(|i| i * i).any(|x| x == i);
```

Rewrite the code as indicated.

```rust
fn main() {
    let vec = vec![1];

    for i in 0..2 {
        let _ = vec.iter().map(|i| i * i).any(|x| x == i);  // <- execute `map` every loop.
    }
}
```

this code is valid in the compiler, but, it is different from the code before the rewrite.
So, we should not lint, If `collect` is outside of a loop.

Thank you in advance.

---

changelog: Do not lint if the target code is inside a loop in `needless_collect`
2022-08-21 09:58:24 +00:00
Philipp Krones
070b0350df
Improve error if rustfix coverage test spuriously fails 2022-08-21 11:57:05 +02:00
Philipp Krones
318ed05920
Reduce code duplication
Only check for the kind of loop once instead of re-desugaring it.
2022-08-21 11:03:54 +02:00
kyoto7250
5048af7a3a
feat(fix): Do not lint if the target code is inside a loop 2022-08-21 10:47:03 +02:00
bors
87b3afcd71 Auto merge of #8696 - J-ZhengLi:issue8492, r=flip1995
check for if-some-or-ok-else-none-or-err

fixes: #8492

---

changelog: make [`option_if_let_else`] to check for match expression with both Option and Result; **TODO: Change lint name? Add new lint with similar functionality?**
2022-08-21 08:32:44 +00:00
Philipp Krones
1f75845a8f
Reduce indentation and add comment about lint name 2022-08-21 10:29:26 +02:00
tamaron
f7a376e4fc Update needless_match.stderr 2022-08-21 17:26:39 +09:00
J-ZhengLi
ffe7125163
and check for Result 2022-08-21 10:24:30 +02:00
J-ZhengLi
5d403c0b85
allow check for match in lint [option_if_let_else]
and add test case for `Result`
2022-08-21 10:24:27 +02:00
bors
41309df8ef Auto merge of #8857 - smoelius:fix-8855, r=flip1995
Add test for #8855

Fix #8855

Here is what I think is going on.

First, the expression `format!("{:>6} {:>6}", a, b.to_string())` expands to:
```rust
{
    let res =
        ::alloc::fmt::format(::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1_formatted(&["",
                            " "],
                &[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&a),
                            ::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&b.to_string())],
                &[::core::fmt::rt::v1::Argument {
                                position: 0usize,
                                format: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::FormatSpec {
                                    fill: ' ',
                                    align: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Alignment::Right,
                                    flags: 0u32,
                                    precision: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Count::Implied,
                                    width: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Count::Is(6usize),
                                },
                            },
                            ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Argument {
                                position: 1usize,
                                format: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::FormatSpec {
                                    fill: ' ',
                                    align: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Alignment::Right,
                                    flags: 0u32,
                                    precision: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Count::Implied,
                                    width: ::core::fmt::rt::v1::Count::Is(6usize),
                                },
                            }], unsafe { ::core::fmt::UnsafeArg::new() }));
    res
}
```
When I dump the expressions that get past the call to `has_string_formatting` [here](b312ad7d0c/clippy_lints/src/format_args.rs (L83)), I see more than I would expect.

In particular, I see this subexpression of the above:
```
                &[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&a),
                            ::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&b.to_string())],
```

This suggests to me that more expressions are getting past [this call](b312ad7d0c/clippy_lints/src/format_args.rs (L71)) to `FormatArgsExpn::parse` than should.

Those expressions are then visited, but no `::core::fmt::rt::v1::Argument`s are found and pushed [here](b312ad7d0c/clippy_utils/src/macros.rs (L407)).

As a result, the expressions appear unformatted, hence, the false positive.

My proposed fix is to restrict `FormatArgsExpn::parse` so that it only matches `Call` expressions.

cc: `@akanalytics`

changelog: none
2022-08-20 18:02:34 +00:00
Samuel E. Moelius III
6f3d398e13 Add test for #8855 2022-08-20 15:21:32 +00:00
bors
5820addb24 Auto merge of #9269 - nahuakang:collapsible_str_replace, r=flip1995
Lint `collapsible_str_replace`

fixes #6651

```
changelog: [`collapsible_str_replace`]: create new lint `collapsible_str_replace`
```

If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.

- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- \[x] `cargo test` passes locally
- \[ ] Executed `cargo dev update_lints`
- \[x] Added lint documentation
- \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
2022-08-20 13:44:35 +00:00
bors
0dfec01011 Auto merge of #9355 - alex-semenyuk:fixed_typos, r=giraffate
Fix typos

changelog: none
2022-08-20 12:49:00 +00:00
Nahua Kang
b070b4045f Simplify lint logic and address code review comments 2022-08-20 12:09:09 +02:00
alex-semenyuk
2781ad0e9e Fix typos 2022-08-20 12:31:29 +03:00
bors
2091142f5d Auto merge of #9258 - Serial-ATA:unused-peekable, r=Alexendoo
Add [`unused_peekable`] lint

changelog: Add [`unused_peekable`] lint
closes: #854
2022-08-19 18:30:13 +00:00
Nahua Kang
fb30b64f63 Adjust test cases; run cargo dev bless 2022-08-19 20:00:20 +02:00
Nahua Kang
c989746ccf Remove checks on char slice; improve lint suggestion 2022-08-19 20:00:20 +02:00
Nahua Kang
a9bd0bd321 Handle repeated str::replace calls with single char kind to str 2022-08-19 20:00:19 +02:00
Nahua Kang
6e86687529 Handle replace calls with char slices 2022-08-19 19:55:28 +02:00
Nahua Kang
89698b9613 Extend and improve initial test cases for collapsible_str_replace 2022-08-19 19:49:16 +02:00
Nahua Kang
a4413f75bf Register new lint collapsible_str_replace to methods 2022-08-19 19:49:15 +02:00
bors
3a54117ffc Auto merge of #8804 - Jarcho:in_recursion, r=Alexendoo
Rework `only_used_in_recursion`

fixes #8782
fixes #8629
fixes #8560
fixes #8556

This is a complete rewrite of the lint. This loses some capabilities of the old implementation. Namely the ability to track through tuple and slice patterns, as well as the ability to trace through assignments.

The two reported bugs are fixed with this. One was caused by using the name of the method rather than resolving to the `DefId` of the called method. The second was cause by using the existence of a cycle in the dependency graph to determine whether the parameter was used in recursion even though there were other ways to create a cycle in the graph.

Implementation wise this switches from using a visitor to walking up the tree from every use of each parameter until it has been determined the parameter is used for something other than recursion. This is likely to perform better as it avoids walking the entire function a second time, and it is unlikely to walk up the HIR tree very much. Some cases would perform worse though.

cc `@buttercrab`

changelog: Scale back `only_used_in_recursion` to fix false positives
changelog: Move `only_used_in_recursion` back to `complexity`
2022-08-19 16:11:48 +00:00
bors
3e594de8ec Auto merge of #9349 - Alexendoo:format-args-expn, r=flip1995
Refactor `FormatArgsExpn`

It now for each format argument `{..}` has:
- The `Expr` it points to, and how it does so (named/named inline/numbered/implicit)
- The parsed `FormatSpec` (format trait/fill/align/etc., the precision/width and any value they point to)
- Many spans

The caller no longer needs to pair up arguments to their value, or separately interpret the `specs` `Expr`s when it isn't `None`

The gist is that it combines the result of [`rustc_parse_format::Parser`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_parse_format/struct.Parser.html) with the macro expansion itself

This unfortunately makes the code a bit longer, however we need to use both as neither have all the information we're after. `rustc_parse_format` doesn't have the information to resolve named arguments to their values. The macro expansion doesn't contain whether the positions are implicit/numbered/named, or the spans for format arguments

Wanted by #9233 and #8518 to be able to port the changes from #9040

Also fixes #8643, previously the format args seem to have been paired up with the wrong values somehow

changelog: [`format_in_format_args`]: Fix false positive due to misattributed arguments

r? `@flip1995`
cc `@nyurik`
2022-08-19 15:55:05 +00:00