use clippy_utils::diagnostics::span_lint_and_sugg; use clippy_utils::source::snippet; use if_chain::if_chain; use rustc_data_structures::fx::FxHashMap; use rustc_errors::Applicability; use rustc_hir::{self as hir, ExprKind}; use rustc_lint::{LateContext, LateLintPass}; use rustc_session::{declare_lint_pass, declare_tool_lint}; use rustc_span::symbol::Symbol; declare_clippy_lint! { /// ### What it does /// Checks for struct constructors where all fields are shorthand and /// the order of the field init shorthand in the constructor is inconsistent /// with the order in the struct definition. /// /// ### Why is this bad? /// Since the order of fields in a constructor doesn't affect the /// resulted instance as the below example indicates, /// /// ```rust /// #[derive(Debug, PartialEq, Eq)] /// struct Foo { /// x: i32, /// y: i32, /// } /// let x = 1; /// let y = 2; /// /// // This assertion never fails: /// assert_eq!(Foo { x, y }, Foo { y, x }); /// ``` /// /// inconsistent order can be confusing and decreases readability and consistency. /// /// ### Example /// ```rust /// struct Foo { /// x: i32, /// y: i32, /// } /// let x = 1; /// let y = 2; /// /// Foo { y, x }; /// ``` /// /// Use instead: /// ```rust /// # struct Foo { /// # x: i32, /// # y: i32, /// # } /// # let x = 1; /// # let y = 2; /// Foo { x, y }; /// ``` #[clippy::version = "1.52.0"] pub INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR, pedantic, "the order of the field init shorthand is inconsistent with the order in the struct definition" } declare_lint_pass!(InconsistentStructConstructor => [INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR]); impl<'tcx> LateLintPass<'tcx> for InconsistentStructConstructor { fn check_expr(&mut self, cx: &LateContext<'tcx>, expr: &'tcx hir::Expr<'_>) { if_chain! { if !expr.span.from_expansion(); if let ExprKind::Struct(qpath, fields, base) = expr.kind; let ty = cx.typeck_results().expr_ty(expr); if let Some(adt_def) = ty.ty_adt_def(); if adt_def.is_struct(); if let Some(variant) = adt_def.variants.iter().next(); if fields.iter().all(|f| f.is_shorthand); then { let mut def_order_map = FxHashMap::default(); for (idx, field) in variant.fields.iter().enumerate() { def_order_map.insert(field.name, idx); } if is_consistent_order(fields, &def_order_map) { return; } let mut ordered_fields: Vec<_> = fields.iter().map(|f| f.ident.name).collect(); ordered_fields.sort_unstable_by_key(|id| def_order_map[id]); let mut fields_snippet = String::new(); let (last_ident, idents) = ordered_fields.split_last().unwrap(); for ident in idents { fields_snippet.push_str(&format!("{}, ", ident)); } fields_snippet.push_str(&last_ident.to_string()); let base_snippet = if let Some(base) = base { format!(", ..{}", snippet(cx, base.span, "..")) } else { String::new() }; let sugg = format!("{} {{ {}{} }}", snippet(cx, qpath.span(), ".."), fields_snippet, base_snippet, ); span_lint_and_sugg( cx, INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR, expr.span, "struct constructor field order is inconsistent with struct definition field order", "try", sugg, Applicability::MachineApplicable, ) } } } } // Check whether the order of the fields in the constructor is consistent with the order in the // definition. fn is_consistent_order<'tcx>(fields: &'tcx [hir::ExprField<'tcx>], def_order_map: &FxHashMap) -> bool { let mut cur_idx = usize::MIN; for f in fields { let next_idx = def_order_map[&f.ident.name]; if cur_idx > next_idx { return false; } cur_idx = next_idx; } true }