Fix scoping for let chains in match guards
If let guards were previously represented as a different type of guard in HIR and THIR. This meant that let chains in match guards were not handled correctly because they were treated exactly like normal guards.
- Remove `hir::Guard` and `thir::Guard`.
- Make the scoping different between normal guards and if let guards also check for let chains.
closes#118593
Don't emit `struct_field_names` lint if all fields are booleans and don't start with the type's name
Fixes#11936.
I only checked that all fields are booleans and not the prefix (nor the suffix) because when I started to list accepted prefixes (like "is", "has", "should", "could", etc), the list was starting to get a bit too long and I thought it was not really worth for such a small change.
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: Don't emit `struct_field_names` lint if all fields are booleans and don't start with the type's name
Don't lint `let_unit_value` when `()` is explicit
since these are explicitly written (and not the result of a function call or anything else), they should be allowed, as they are both useful in some cases described in #9048Fixes#9048
changelog: [`let_unit_value`]: Don't lint when `()` is explicit
Polish `missing_enforced_import_renames` documentation
* Fixes a typo in the name of the lint (`enforce-import-renames` instead of `enforced-import-renames`).
* Copyedit “Why” paragraph.
* Make the example configuration use a multi-line list, since it is not particularly expected that a real project will have *exactly one* rename to enforce (and the old formatting had unbalanced whitespace).
changelog: none
Don't look for safety comments in doc tests
Fixes#12048.
What happened in the linked issue is that the lint checks for lines that start with `//` and have `SAFETY:` somewhere in it above the function item.
This works for regular comments, but when the `//` is the start of a doc comment (e.g. `/// // SAFETY: ...`) and it's part of a doc test (i.e. within \`\`\`), we probably shouldn't lint that, since the user most likely meant to refer to a different node than the one currently being checked. For example in the linked issue, the safety comment refers to `unsafe { *five_pointer }`, but the lint believes it's part of the function item.
We also can't really easily test whether the `// SAFETY:` comment within a doc comment is necessary or not, since I think that would require creating a new compiler session to re-parse the contents of the doc comment. We already do this for one of the doc markdown lints, to look for a main function in doc tests, but I don't know how to feel about doing that in more places, so probably best to just ignore them?
changelog: [`unnecessary_safety_comment`]: don't look for safety comments in doc tests
Add .as_ref() to suggestion to remove .to_string()
The case of `.to_owned().split(…)` is treated specially in the `unnecessary_to_owned` lint. Test cases check that it works both for slices and for strings, but they missed a corner case: `x.to_string().split(…)` when `x` implements `AsRef<str>` but not `Deref<Target = str>`. In this case, it is wrong to suggest to remove `.to_string()` without adding `.as_ref()` instead.
Fix#12068
changelog: [`unnecessary_to_owned`]: suggest replacing `.to_string()` by `.as_ref()`
new lint: `option_as_ref_cloned`
Closes#12009
Adds a new lint that looks for `.as_ref().cloned()` on `Option`s. That's the same as just `.clone()`-ing the option directly.
changelog: new lint: [`option_as_ref_cloned`]
Extend `unconditional_recursion` lint to check for `Default` trait implementation
In case the `Default` trait is implemented manually and is calling a static method (let's call it `a`) and then `a` is using `Self::default()`, it makes an infinite call recursion difficult to see without debugging. This extension checks that there is no such recursion possible.
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: Extend `unconditional_recursion` lint to check for `Default` trait implementation
Lint nested binary operations and handle field projections in `eager_transmute`
This PR makes the lint a bit stronger. Previously it would only lint `(x < 4).then_some(transmute(x))` (that is, a single binary op in the condition). With this change, it understands:
- multiple, nested binary ops: `(x < 4 && x > 1).then_some(...)`
- local references with projections: `(x.field < 4 && x.field > 1).then_some(transmute(x.field))`
changelog: [`eager_transmute`]: lint nested binary operations and look through field/array accesses
r? llogiq (since you reviewed my initial PR #11981, I figured you have the most context here, sorry if you are too busy with other PRs, feel free to reassign to someone else then)
Fix false positive `unconditional_recursion`
Fixes#12052.
Only checking if both variables are `local` was not enough, we also need to confirm they have the same type as `Self`.
changelog: Fix false positive for `unconditional_recursion` lint
Fixes: #12050 - `identity_op` correctly suggests a deference for coerced references
When `identity_op` identifies a `no_op`, provides a suggestion, it also checks the type of the type of the variable. If the variable is a reference that's been coerced into a value, e.g.
```
let x = &0i32;
let _ = x + 0;
```
the suggestion will now use a derefence. This is done by identifying whether the variable is a reference to an integral value, and then whether it gets dereferenced.
changelog: false positive: [`identity_op`]: corrected suggestion for reference coerced to value.
fixes: #12050
Adds a new lint to suggest using `const` on `thread_local!`
initializers that can be evaluated at compile time.
Impl details:
The lint relies on the expansion of `thread_local!`. For non
const-labelled initializers, `thread_local!` produces a function
called `__init` that lazily initializes the value. We check the function
and decide whether the body can be const. The body of the function is
exactly the initializer. If so, we lint the body.
changelog: new lint [`thread_local_initializer_can_be_made_const`]
Extend UNCONDITIONAL_RECURSION to check for ToString implementations
Follow-up of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11938.
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: Extend `UNCONDITIONAL_RECURSION` to check for `ToString` implementations
New Lint: empty_enum_variants_with_brackets
This PR:
- adds a new early pass lint that checks for enum variants with no fields that were defined using brackets. **Category: Restriction**
- adds relevant UI tests for the new lint.
Closes#12007
```
changelog: New lint: [`empty_enum_variants_with_brackets`]
```
don't lint [`default_numeric_fallback`] on return and local assigned macro calls with type stated
fixes: #11535
changelog: don't lint [`default_numeric_fallback`] on return and local assigned macro calls with type stated
feat: add `manual_is_variant_and` lint
changelog: add a new lint [`manual_is_variant_and`].
- Replace `option.map(f).unwrap_or_default()` and `result.map(f).unwrap_or_default()` with `option.is_some_and(f)` and `result.is_ok_and(f)` where `f` is a function or closure that returns `bool`.
- MSRV is set to 1.70.0 for this lint; when `is_some_and` and `is_ok_and` was stabilised
---
For example, for the following code:
```rust
let opt = Some(0);
opt.map(|x| x > 1).unwrap_or_default();
```
It suggests to instead write:
```rust
let opt = Some(0);
opt.is_some_and(|x| x > 1)
```
make [`mutex_atomic`] more type aware
fixes: #9872
---
changelog: [`mutex_atomic`] now suggests more specific atomic types and skips mutex i128 and u128
When `identity_op` identifies a `no_op`, provides a suggestion, it also
checks the type of the type of the variable. If the variable is
a reference that's been coerced into a value, e.g.
```
let x = &0i32;
let _ = x + 0;
```
the suggestion will now use a derefence. This is done by identifying
whether the variable is a reference to an integral value, and then
whether it gets dereferenced.
changelog: false positive: [`identity_op`]: corrected suggestion for
reference coerced to value.
fixes: #12050
feature: add new lint `pub_underscore_fields`
fixes: #10282
This PR introduces a new lint `pub_underscore_fields` that lints when a user has marked a field of a struct as public, but also prefixed it with an underscore (`_`). This is something users should avoid because the two ideas are contradictory. Prefixing a field with an `_` is inferred as the field being unused, but making a field public infers that it will be used.
- \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- I believe I followed the naming conventions, more than happy to update the naming if I did not :)
- \[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: new lint: [`pub_underscore_fields`]
[#10283](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10283)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
- add a new late pass lint, with config options
- add ui tests for both variations of config option
- update CHANGELOG.md
github feedback
bump version to 1.77 and run cargo collect-metadata
Change `,` to `;` in `conf.rs`
* Fixes a typo in the name of the lint (`enforce-import-renames`
instead of `enforced-import-renames`).
* Copyedit “Why” paragraph.
* Make the example configuration use a multi-line list, since it is not
particularly expected that a real project will have *exactly one*
rename to enforce (and the old formatting had unbalanced whitespace).
new lint: `eager_transmute`
A small but still hopefully useful lint that looks for patterns such as `(x < 5).then_some(transmute(x))`.
This is almost certainly wrong because it evaluates the transmute eagerly and can lead to surprises such as the check being completely removed and always evaluating to `Some` no matter what `x` is (it is UB after all when the integer is not a valid bitpattern for the transmuted-to type). [Example](https://godbolt.org/z/xoY34fPzh).
The user most likely meant to use `then` instead.
I can't remember where I saw this but this is inspired by a real bug that happened in practice.
This could probably be a correctness lint?
changelog: new lint: [`eager_int_transmute`]
Return with a question mark was triggered in situations where the `?`
desuraging was performing error conversion via `Into`/`From`.
The desugared `?` produces a match over an expression with type
`std::ops::ControlFlow<B,C>` with `B:Result<Infallible, E:Error>` and
`C:Result<_, E':Error>`, and the arms perform the conversion. The patch
adds another check in the lint that checks that `E == E'`. If `E == E'`,
then the `?` is indeed unnecessary.
changelog: False Positive: `needless_return_with_question_mark` when
implicit Error Conversion occurs.
New lints `iter_filter_is_some` and `iter_filter_is_ok`
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result` and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
Fixes#11843
PS, I also made some minor documentations fixes in a case where a double tick (`) was included.
---
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
[#12004](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/12004)
Make closures carry their own ClosureKind
Right now, we use the "`movability`" field of `hir::Closure` to distinguish a closure and a coroutine. This is paired together with the `CoroutineKind`, which is located not in the `hir::Closure`, but the `hir::Body`. This is strange and redundant.
This PR introduces `ClosureKind` with two variants -- `Closure` and `Coroutine`, which is put into `hir::Closure`. The `CoroutineKind` is thus removed from `hir::Body`, and `Option<Movability>` no longer needs to be a stand-in for "is this a closure or a coroutine".
r? eholk
Do not consider `async { (impl IntoFuture).await }` as redundant
changelog: [`redundant_async_block`]: do not trigger on `IntoFuture` instances
Fix#11959
Move `uninhabited_references` to `nursery`
I think this lint has too many false positives and should be put in pedantic. See #11984 and #11985 for context.
The lint is already in beta and is causing trouble for us, so I would also like this PR to be backported to beta as well.
changelog: Moved [`uninhabited_references`] to `nursery` (Now allow-by-default)
[#11997](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11997)
(Check if this has been backported)
Fixes#11984.
[`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
This fixes the false negative mentioned in #11993: the lint only used to check for `return` expressions, and not a statement containing a `return` expression (doesn't close the issue tho since there's still a useful suggestion that we could make, which is to suggest `.ok_or()?`/`.ok_or_else()?` for `else { return Err(..) }`)
changelog: [`question_mark`]: also trigger on `return` statements
Clairify `ast::PatKind::Struct` presese of `..` by using an enum instead of a bool
The bool is mainly used for when a `..` is present, but it is also set on recovery to avoid errors. The doc comment not describes both of these cases.
See cee794ee98/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/pat.rs (L890-L897) for the only place this is constructed.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
fix typo in infinite loop lint
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: This fixes a small typo introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11829
Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9965.
When you have `to_string().split('a')` or equivalent, it'll suggest to remove the `to_owned`/`to_string` part.
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Extend `UNNECESSARY_TO_OWNED` to handle `split`
Check whether out of bound when access a known length array with a constant index
fixes [Issue#11762](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11762)
Issue#11762 points that `Array references with known length are not flagged when indexed out of bounds`.
To fix this problem, it is needed to add check for `Expr::Index`. We expand this issue include reference and direct accessing a array.
When we access a array with a constant index `off`, and already know the length `size`, if `off >= size`, these code will throw an error, instead rustc's lint checking them or runtime panic happening.
changelog: [`out_of_bound_indexing`]: Add check for illegal accessing known length array with a constant index
Add support for `for await` loops
This adds support for `for await` loops. This includes parsing, desugaring in AST->HIR lowering, and adding some support functions to the library.
Given a loop like:
```rust
for await i in iter {
...
}
```
this is desugared to something like:
```rust
let mut iter = iter.into_async_iter();
while let Some(i) = loop {
match core::pin::Pin::new(&mut iter).poll_next(cx) {
Poll::Ready(i) => break i,
Poll::Pending => yield,
}
} {
...
}
```
This PR also adds a basic `IntoAsyncIterator` trait. This is partly for symmetry with the way `Iterator` and `IntoIterator` work. The other reason is that for async iterators it's helpful to have a place apart from the data structure being iterated over to store state. `IntoAsyncIterator` gives us a good place to do this.
I've gated this feature behind `async_for_loop` and opened #118898 as the feature tracking issue.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Adds a pair of lints that check for cases of an iterator over `Result`
and `Option` followed by `filter` without being followed by `map` as
that is covered already by a different, specialized lint.
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_some`]
changelog: New Lint: [`iter_filter_is_ok`]
New Lint: `result_filter_map` / Mirror of `option_filter_map`
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map`.
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
I had to move around some code because the function def was too long 🙃.
I have also added some pattern checks on `option_filter_map`
Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Currently, rustc `unconditional_recursion` doesn't detect cases like:
```rust
enum Foo {
A,
B,
}
impl PartialEq for Foo {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self == other
}
}
```
This is because the lint is currently implemented only for one level, and in the above code, `self == other` will then call `impl PartialEq for &T`, escaping from the detection. The fix for it seems to be a bit tricky (I started investigating potential solution to add one extra level of recursion [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...GuillaumeGomez:rust:trait-impl-recursion?expand=1) but completely broken at the moment).
I expect that this situation will remain for a while. In the meantime, I think it's acceptable to check it directly into clippy for the time being as a lot of easy cases like this one can be easily checked (next I plan to extend it to cover other traits like `ToString`).
changelog: Add new `unconditional_recursion` lint
Added the `Result` mirror of `option_filter_map` to catch
```
.into_iter().filter(Result::is_ok).map(Result::unwrap)
```
changelog: New Lint: [`result_filter_map`]
Co-authored-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
Uplift `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind` to `rustc_type_ir`
Uplifts `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind`
I know I said I was just going to get rid of `TypeAndMut` (https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/124) but I think this is much simpler, lol
r? `@jackh726` or `@lcnr`
Fix binder handling in `unnecessary_to_owned`
fixes#11952
The use of `rebind` instead of `EarlyBinder::bind` isn't technically needed, but it is the semantically correct operation.
changelog: None
[`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses `()` for quoting
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`doc_markdown`] Recognize words followed by empty parentheses for quoting, e.g. `func()`.
---
Developers often write function/method names with trailing `()`, but `doc_markdown` lint did not consider that.
Old clippy suggestion was not very good:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (do() or `do_not`()).
```
New behavior recognizes function names such as `do()` even they contain no `_`/`::`; and backticks are suggested outside of the `()`:
```patch
-/// There is no try (do() or do_not()).
+/// There is no try (`do()` or `do_not()`).
```
Useless vec false positive
changelog: [`useless_vec`]: fix false positive in macros.
fixes#11861
We delay the emission of `useless_vec` lints to the check_crate_post stage, which allows us to effectively undo lints if we find that a `vec![]` expression is being used multiple times after macro expansion.
new lint to detect infinite loop
closes: #11438
changelog: add new lint to detect infinite loop
~*I'll change the lint name*~. Should I name it `infinite_loop` or `infinite_loops` is fine? Ahhhh, English is hard...
Renamings:
- find -> opt_hir_node
- get -> hir_node
- find_by_def_id -> opt_hir_node_by_def_id
- get_by_def_id -> hir_node_by_def_id
Fix rebase changes using removed methods
Use `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id()` whenever possible in compiler
Fix clippy errors
Fix compiler
Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Vadim Petrochenkov <vadim.petrochenkov@gmail.com>
Add FIXME for `tcx.hir()` returned type about its removal
Simplify with with `tcx.hir_node_by_def_id`
Add lint against ambiguous wide pointer comparisons
This PR is the resolution of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106447 decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717 by T-lang.
## `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `ambiguous_wide_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of `*const/*mut ?Sized` as the operands.
### Example
```rust
let ab = (A, B);
let a = &ab.0 as *const dyn T;
let b = &ab.1 as *const dyn T;
let _ = a == b;
```
### Explanation
The comparison includes metadata which may not be expected.
-------
This PR also drops `clippy::vtable_address_comparisons` which is superseded by this one.
~~One thing: is the current naming right? `invalid` seems a bit too much.~~
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117717
uninhabited_reference: new lint
Close#11851
The lint is implemented on function parameters and return types, as this is the place where the risk of exchanging references to uninhabited types is the highest. Other constructs, such as in a local variable,
would require the use of `unsafe` and will clearly be done on purpose.
changelog: [`uninhabited_reference`]: new lint
This is an extension of the previous commit. It means the output of
something like this:
```
stringify!(let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];)
```
goes from this:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![] ;
```
With this PR, it now produces this string:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];
```
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add a function to check whether binary oprands are nontrivial
fixes [#issue11885](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11885)
It's hard to check whether operator is overrided through context of lint.
So, assume non-trivial structure like tuple, array or sturt, using a overrided binary operator in this lint, which might cause a side effict.
This is not detected before.
Althrough this might weaken the ability of this lint, it may more useful than before. Maybe this lint will cause an error, but now, it not. And assuming side effect of non-trivial structure with operator is not a bad thing, right?
changelog: Fix: [`no_effect`] check if binary operands are nontrivial
fix(ptr_as_ptr): handle `std::ptr::null{_mut}`
close rust-lang#11066
close rust-lang#11665
close rust-lang#11911
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`ptr_as_ptr`]: handle `std::ptr::null` and `std::ptr::null_mut`
needless_borrows_for_generic_args: Handle when field operand impl Drop
Before this fix, the lint had a false positive, namely when a reference was taken to a field when the field operand implements a custom Drop. The compiler will refuse to partially move a type that implements Drop, because that would put the type in a weird state.
## False Positive Example (Fixed)
```rs
struct CustomDrop(String);
impl Drop for CustomDrop {
fn drop(&mut self) {}
}
fn check_str<P: AsRef<str>>(_to: P) {}
fn test() {
let owner = CustomDrop(String::default());
check_str(&owner.0); // Don't lint. `owner` can't be partially moved because it impl Drop
}
```
changelog: [`needless_borrows_for_generic_args`]: Handle when field operand impl Drop
docs(explicit_write): add missing backtick to complete code snippet
close#11918
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`explicit_write`]: add missing backtick to document to complete code snippet
Update regex-syntax to support new word boundry assertions
From the regex v1.10.0 release notes [1]:
This is a new minor release of regex that adds support for start
and end word boundary assertions. [...]
The new word boundary assertions are:
• \< or \b{start}: a Unicode start-of-word boundary (\W|\A
on the left, \w on the right).
• \> or \b{end}: a Unicode end-of-word boundary (\w on the
left, \W|\z on the right)).
• \b{start-half}: half of a Unicode start-of-word boundary
(\W|\A on the left).
• \b{end-half}: half of a Unicode end-of-word boundary
(\W|\z on the right).
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/regex/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#1100-2023-10-09
changelog: [`regex`]: add support for start and end word boundary assertions ("\<", "\b{start}", etc.) introduced in regex v0.10
Simpfy code of `is_operator_overrided`, directly use `is_method_call` to
check
if operator is overrided, at least one oprand of binary-expr must be ADT-type
So no need to check type of lhs and rhs
Check whether operator is overrided with a `struct` operand.
The struct here refers to `struct`, `enum`, `union`.
Add and fix test for `no_effect` lint.
From the regex v1.10.0 release notes [1]:
This is a new minor release of regex that adds support for start
and end word boundary assertions. [...]
The new word boundary assertions are:
• \< or \b{start}: a Unicode start-of-word boundary (\W|\A
on the left, \w on the right).
• \> or \b{end}: a Unicode end-of-word boundary (\w on the
left, \W|\z on the right)).
• \b{start-half}: half of a Unicode start-of-word boundary
(\W|\A on the left).
• \b{end-half}: half of a Unicode end-of-word boundary
(\W|\z on the right).
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/regex/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#1100-2023-10-09
expending lint [`blocks_in_if_conditions`] to check match expr as well
closes: #11814
changelog: rename lint `blocks_in_if_conditions` to [`blocks_in_conditions`] and expand it to check blocks in match scrutinees
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept length equality checks
Fixes#11835
The lint now allows indexing with indices 0 and 1 when an `assert!(x.len() == 2);` is found.
(Also fixed a typo in the doc example)
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept len equality checks as a valid assertion
Before this fix, the lint had a false positive, namely when a reference
was taken to a field when the field operand implements a custom Drop.
The compiler will refuse to partially move a type that implements Drop,
because that would put the operand in a weird state. See added
regression test.
`option_if_let_else`: do not trigger on expressions returning `()`
Fix#11893
Trigerring on expressions returning `()` uses the arguments of the `map_or_else()` rewrite only for their side effects. This does lead to code which is harder to read than the original.
changelog: [`option_if_let_else`]: do not trigger on unit expressions
add lint against unit tests in doctests
During RustLab, Alice Ryhl brought to my attention that the Andoid team stumbled over the fact that if one attempts to write a unit test within a doctest, it will be summarily ignored. So this lint should help people wondering why their tests won't run.
---
changelog: New lint: [`test_attr_in_doctest`]
[#11872](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11872)
Fix#11893
Trigerring on expressions returning `()` uses the arguments of the
`map_or_else()` rewrite only for their side effects. This does lead
to code which is harder to read than the original.
[`redundant_guards`]: catch `is_empty`, `starts_with` and `ends_with` on slices and `str`s
Fixes#11807
Few things worth mentioning:
- Taking `snippet`s is now done at callsite, instead of passing a span and doing it in `emit_redundant_guards`. This is because we now need custom suggestion strings in certain places, like `""` for `str::is_empty`.
- This now uses `snippet` instead of `snippet_with_applicability`. I don't think this really makes any difference for `MaybeIncorrect`, though?
- This could also lint byte strings, as they're of type `&[u8; N]`, but that can be ugly so I decided to leave it out for now
changelog: [`redundant_guards`]: catch `str::is_empty`, `slice::is_empty`, `slice::starts_with` and `slice::ends_with`
Add `never_patterns` feature gate
This PR adds the feature gate and most basic parsing for the experimental `never_patterns` feature. See the tracking issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) for details on the experiment.
`@scottmcm` has agreed to be my lang-team liaison for this experiment.
[`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
close#11357
----
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: [`redundant_closure_call`]: avoid duplicated `async` keyword when triggering on closure that returns `async` block
- Rename them both `as_str`, which is the typical name for a function
that returns a `&str`. (`to_string` is appropriate for functions
returning `String` or maybe `Cow<'a, str>`.)
- Change `UnOp::as_str` from an associated function (weird!) to a
method.
- Avoid needless `self` dereferences.
Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not float
clippy::suboptimal_flops used to not check if the second parameter to f32/f64.mul_add() was float. Since the method is only defined to take `Self` as parameters, the suggestion was wrong.
Fixes#11831
changelog: [`suboptimal_float`]: Don't suggest `a.mul_add(b, c)` if parameters are not f32/f64
[`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
Fixes#11816
Not a new lint, just a very small improvement to the existing `ptr_arg` lint which would have caught the linked issue.
The problem was that the lint checks if a `Vec`-specific method was called, that is, if the receiver is `Vec<_>`.
This is the case for `len` and `is_empty`, however these methods also exist on slices so we can still lint there.
This logic exists in a different lint, so we can just reuse that here.
Interestingly, there was even a comment up top that explained what it should have been doing, but the logic for it just wasn't there?
changelog: [`ptr_arg`]: recognize methods that also exist on slices
<sub>Also, this is my 100th PR to clippy 🎉 </sub>
`manual_try_fold`: check that `fold` is really `Iterator::fold`
Fix#11876
changelog: [`manual_try_fold`]: suggest using `try_fold` only for `Iterator::fold` uses
Move `implied_bounds_in_impls` back to complexity
This lint was originally in the complexity category when I PR'd it. It was then moved to nursery by me due to a number of issues (a false positive, an invalid suggestion and an ICE), but that was probably an overreaction and all of the issues were fixed quickly after.
This is a useful lint imo and there hasn't been any issues with it in a few months, so I say we should give it another try and move it back to complexity.
I did a lintcheck run on the top 400 crates and all of them are legitimate, with 18 warnings. Most of them are from anstyle having a `impl Display + Copy + Clone` return type, or the bitvec crate with a return type like `impl Iterator + DoubleEndedIterator`.
changelog: Move [`implied_bounds_in_impls`] to `complexity` (Now warn-by-default)
[#11867](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11867)
Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
Fixes#10045.
For the following code:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.map_or(Err("error"), Ok);
```
It suggests to instead write:
```rust
let opt = Some(1);
opt.ok_or("error");
```
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: Create new lint `option_map_or_err_ok`
suggest alternatives to iterate an array of ranges
works towards #7125
changelog: [`single_element_loop`]: suggest better syntax when iterating over an array of a single range
`@thinkerdreamer` and myself worked on this issue during a workshop by `@llogiq` at the RustLab 2023 conference. It is our first contribution to clippy.
When iterating over an array of only one element, _which is a range_, our change suggests to replace the array with the contained range itself. Additionally, a hint is printed stating that the user probably intended to iterate over the range and not the array. If the single element in the array is not a range, the previous suggestion in the form of `let {pat_snip} = {prefix}{arg_snip};{block_str}`is used.
This change lints the array with the single range directly, so any prefixes or suffixes are covered as well.
Nit re `matches!` formatting
I think formatting `matches!` with `if` guards is [still unsupported](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/5547), which is probably why this was missed.
changelog: none
[`deprecated_semver`]: Allow `#[deprecated(since = "TBD")]`
"TBD" is allowed by rustdoc, saying that it will be deprecated in a future version. rustc will also not actually warn on it.
I found this while checking the rust-lang/rust with clippy.
changelog: [`deprecated_semver`]: allow using `since = "TBD"`
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: work with bodies instead of blocks separately
Fixes#11856
Before this change, this lint would check blocks independently of each other, which means that it misses `assert!()`s from parent blocks.
```rs
// check_block
assert!(x.len() > 1);
{
// check_block
// no assert here
let _ = x[0] + x[1];
}
```
This PR changes it to work with bodies rather than individual blocks. That means that a function will be checked in one go and we can remember if an `assert!` occurred anywhere.
Eventually it would be nice to have a more control flow-aware analysis, possibly by rewriting it as a MIR lint, but that's more complicated and I wanted this fixed first.
changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept `assert!`s from parent blocks
Fix iter_kv_map false positive into_keys and into_values suggestion
fixes: #11752
changelog: [`iter_kv_map`]: fix false positive: Don't suggest `into_keys()` and `into_values()` if the MSRV is to low
[`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if never type is used for coercion
Fixes#11616
When we have something like
```rs
let _x: String = {
return Err(())?;
};
```
we shouldn't suggest removing the `return` because the `!`-ness of `return` is used to coerce the enclosing block to some other type. That will lead to a typeck error without a diverging expression like `return`.
changelog: [`needless_return_with_question_mark`]: don't lint if `return`s never typed-ness is used for coercion
Split `doc.rs` up into a subdirectory
So, first, sorry for the bad diff. 😅
In #11798, `@flip1995` suggested splitting `doc.rs` up, much like how we have the `methods/`, `matches/`, `types/` subdirectories.
I agree with this, the file is getting bigger as we add more and more doc lints that it makes sense to do this refactoring.
This is purely an internal change that moves things around a bit.
(**EDIT:** depending on the outcome of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11801#issuecomment-1816715615 , this may change the lint group name from `doc_markdoc` to `doc`).
I tried to not change any of the actual logic of the lints and as such some things weren't as easy to move to a separate file. So we still have some `span_lint*` calls in the `doc/mod.rs` file, which I think is fine. This is also the case in `methods/mod.rs`.
Also worth mentioning that the lints missing_errors_doc, missing_panics_doc, missing_safety_doc and unnecessary_safety_doc have a lot of the same logic so it didn't make much sense for each of these to be in their own file. Instead I just put them all in `missing_headers.rs`
I also added a bit of documentation to the involved `check_{attrs,doc}` methods.
changelog: none
Improve maybe misused cfg
Follow-up of the improvements that were suggested to me in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11821:
* I unified the output to use the same terms.
* I updated the code to prevent creating a new symbol.
r? `@blyxyas`
changelog: [`maybe_misued_cfg`]: Output and code improvements
Verify Borrow<T> semantics for types that implement Hash, Borrow<str> and Borrow<[u8]>.
Fixes#11710
The essence of the issue is that types that implement Borrow<T> provide a facet or a representation of the underlying type. Under these semantics `hash(a) == hash(a.borrow())`.
This is a problem when a type implements `Borrow<str>`, `Borrow<[u8]>` and Hash, it is expected that the hash of all three types is identical. The problem is that the hash of [u8] is not the same as that of a String, even when the byte reference ([u8]) is derived from `.as_bytes()`
- [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`
---
- [x] Explanation of the issue in the code
- [x] Tests reproducing the issue
- [x] Lint rule and emission
---
changelog: New lint: [`impl_hash_borrow_with_str_and_bytes`]
[#11781](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11781)
Implements a lint to prevent implementation of Hash, Borrow<str> and
Borrow<[u8]> as it breaks Borrow<T> "semantics". According to the book,
types that implement Borrow<A> and Borrow<B> must ensure equality of
borrow results under Eq,Ord and Hash.
> In particular Eq, Ord and Hash must be equivalent for borrowed and
owned values: x.borrow() == y.borrow() should give the same result as x == y.
In the same way, hash(x) == hash(x as Borrow<[u8]>) != hash(x as Borrow<str>).
changelog: newlint [`impl_hash_with_borrow_str_and_bytes`]
Fix typos in recent lint documentation.
Fixes typos and markup errors, and also makes the examples more realistic by hiding the `;`s so as not to visibly be discarding the computed value. Affected lints:
* `redundant_as_str`
* `unnecessary_map_on_constructor`
changelog: none
clippy::suboptimal_flops used to not check if the second parameter to f32/f64.mul_add() was float. Since the method is
only defined to take `Self` as paremters, the suggestion was wrong.
Fixes#11831
teach `eager_or_lazy` about panicky arithmetic operations
Fixes#9422Fixes#9814Fixes#11793
It's a bit sad that we have to do this because arithmetic operations seemed to me like the prime example where a closure would not be necessary, but this has "side effects" (changes behavior when going from lazy to eager) as some of these panic on overflow/underflow if compiled with `-Coverflow-checks` (which is the default in debug mode).
Given the number of backlinks in the mentioned issues, this seems to be a FP that is worth fixing, probably.
changelog: [`unnecessary_lazy_evaluations`]: don't lint if closure has panicky arithmetic operations
Extend `maybe_misused_cfg` lint over `cfg(test)`
Fixes#11240.
One thought I had is that we could use the levenshtein distance (of 1) to ensure this is indeed `test` that was targeted. But maybe it's overkill, not sure.
changelog: [`maybe_misused_cfg`]: Extend lint over `cfg(test)`
r? `@blyxyas`
Changelog for Rust 1.74 🎃
Roses are red,
Halloween is over,
Have you considered,
Buying a Mars rover?
---
### The cats of this release:
<img height=500 src="https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/assets/17087237/095bd32e-b5e3-41db-8f0f-bdef7ca1a6d0" alt="The cats of this Clippy release" />
<sub>The cat for the next release can be nominated in the comments</sub>
---
changelog: none
Change `if_same_then_else` to be a `style` lint
CC #3770
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3770#issuecomment-687565594 (`@flip1995):`
> Oh I thought I replied to this: I definitely see now that having this
> as a correctness lint might be the wrong categorization. What we might
> want to do is to just allow this lint, if there are comments in the
> arm bodies. But a good first step would be to downgrade this lint to
> style or complexity. I would vote for style since merging two arms is
> not always less complex.
changelog: [`if_same_then_else`]: Change to be a `style` lint
[`impl_trait_in_params`]: avoid ICE when function with `impl Trait` type has no parameters
Fixes#11803
If I'm reading the old code correctly, it was taking the span of the first parameter (without checking that it exists, which caused the ICE) and uses that to figure out where the generic parameter to insert should go (cc `@blyxyas` you wrote the lint, is that correct?).
This seemed equivalent to just `generics.span`, which doesn't require calculating the spans like that and simplifies it a fair bit
changelog: don't ICE when function has no parameters but generics have an `impl Trait` type
CC #3770
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3770#issuecomment-687565594 (@flip1995):
> Oh I thought I replied to this: I definitely see now that having this
> as a correctness lint might be the wrong categorization. What we might
> want to do is to just allow this lint, if there are comments in the
> arm bodies. But a good first step would be to downgrade this lint to
> style or complexity. I would vote for style since merging two arms is
> not always less complex.
Implement new lint `iter_over_hash_type`
Implements and fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11788
This PR adds a new *restriction* lint `iter_over_hash_type` which prevents `Hash`-types (that is, `HashSet` and `HashMap`) from being used as the iterator in `for` loops.
The justification for this is because in `Hash`-based types, the ordering of items is not guaranteed and may vary between executions of the same program on the same hardware. In addition, it reduces readability due to the unclear iteration order.
The implementation of this lint also ensures the following:
- Calls to `HashMap::keys`, `HashMap::values`, and `HashSet::iter` are also denied when used in `for` loops,
- When this expression is used in procedural macros, it is not linted/denied.
changelog: add new `iter_over_hash_type` lint to prevent unordered iterations through hashed data structures
Fixes to `manual_let_else`'s divergence check
A few changes to the divergence check in `manual_let_else` and moves it the implementation to `clippy_utils` since it's generally useful:
* Handle internal `break` and `continue` expressions.
e.g. The first loop is divergent, but the second is not.
```rust
{
loop {
break 'outer;
};
}
{
loop {
break;
};
}
```
* Match rust's definition of divergence which is defined via the type system.
e.g. The following is not considered divergent by rustc as the inner block has a result type of `()`:
```rust
{
'a: {
panic!();
break 'a;
};
}
```
* Handle when adding a single semicolon would make the expression divergent.
e.g. The following would be a divergent if a semicolon were added after the `if` expression:
```rust
{ if panic!() { 0 } else { 1 } }
```
changelog: None
Lint `needless_borrow` and `explicit_auto_deref` on most union field accesses
Changes both lints to follow rustc's rules around auto-deref through `ManuallyDrop` union fields rather than just bailing on union fields.
changelog: [`needless_borrow`] & [`explicit_auto_deref`]: Lint on most union field accesses
Disable `vec_box` when using different allocators
Fixes#7114
This PR disables the `vec_box` lint when the `Box` and `Vec` use different allocators (but not when they use the same - custom - allocator).
For example - `Vec<Box<i32, DummyAllocator>>` will disable the lint, and `Vec<Box<i32, DummyAllocator>, DummyAllocator>` will not disable the lint.
In addition, the applicability of this lint has been changed to `Unspecified` due to the automatic fixes potentially breaking code such as the following:
```rs
fn foo() -> Vec<Box<i32>> { // -> Vec<i32>
vec![Box::new(1)]
}
```
It should be noted that the `if_chain->let-chains` fix has also been applied to this lint, so the diff does contain many changes.
changelog: disable `vec_box` lint when using nonstandard allocators
[`mod_module_files`] Don't emit lint for mod.rs in tests
fixes: #11775
current state: indiscriminately emits the lint for mod files in tests.
The following
```
tests/
common/
mod.rs
test.rs
```
is a common pattern for code shared across the tests and is suggested in the rust book. The change adds an additional check to verify that the mod file is not in tests.
changelog: Fix [`mod_module_files`]: false positive for mod files in tests folder
fixes: #11775
current state: indiscriminately emits the lint for mod files in tests.
The following
tests/
common/
mod.rs
test.rs
is a common pattern for code shared across the tests and is suggested in
the rust book. The change adds an additional check to verify that the
mod file is not in tests.
changelog: Fix [`mod_module_files`]: false positive for mod files in
tests folder
