mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy
synced 2024-12-01 00:49:30 +00:00
5577e42ead
Uplift `clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles` lint into rustc
This PR, as the title suggests, uplifts [`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`] lint into rustc. This lint warns for code like this:
```rust
for _ in Some(1) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, ()>(1) {}
```
i.e. directly iterating over `Option` and `Result` using `for` loop.
There are a number of suggestions that this PR adds (on top of what clippy suggested):
1. If the argument (? is there a better name for that expression) of a `for` loop is a `.next()` call, then we can suggest removing it (or rather replacing with `.by_ref()` to allow iterator being used later)
```rust
for _ in iter.next() {}
// turns into
for _ in iter.by_ref() {}
```
2. (otherwise) We can suggest using `while let`, this is useful for non-iterator, iterator-like things like [async] channels
```rust
for _ in rx.recv() {}
// turns into
while let Some(_) = rx.recv() {}
```
3. If the argument type is `Result<impl IntoIterator, _>` and the body has a `Result<_, _>` type, we can suggest using `?`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
for _ in f()? {}
```
4. To preserve the original behavior and clear intent, we can suggest using `if let`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
if let Some(_) = f() {}
```
(P.S. `Some` and `Ok` are interchangeable depending on the type)
I still feel that the lint wording/look is somewhat off, so I'll be happy to hear suggestions (on how to improve suggestions :D)!
Resolves #99272
[`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#for_loops_over_fallibles
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| test_utils | ||
| ui | ||
| ui-cargo | ||
| ui-internal | ||
| ui-toml | ||
| workspace_test | ||
| check-fmt.rs | ||
| clippy.toml | ||
| compile-test.rs | ||
| dogfood.rs | ||
| integration.rs | ||
| lint_message_convention.rs | ||
| missing-test-files.rs | ||
| versioncheck.rs | ||
| workspace.rs | ||