rust-clippy/clippy_lints/src/inconsistent_struct_constructor.rs
William Chargin 1b2ca3067e Move inconsistent_struct_constructor to pedantic
The whole point of named fields is that we don't have to worry about
order. The names, not the position, communicate the information, so
worrying about consistency for consistency's sake is pedantic to a *T*.

Fixes #7192.

wchargin-branch: inconsistent-struct-constructor-pedantic
wchargin-source: 4fe078a21c77ceb625e58fa3b90b613fc4fa6a76
2021-05-07 20:24:07 -07:00

136 lines
4.4 KiB
Rust

use clippy_utils::diagnostics::span_lint_and_sugg;
use clippy_utils::in_macro;
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.
///
/// **Known problems:** None.
///
/// **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 };
/// ```
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 LateLintPass<'_> for InconsistentStructConstructor {
fn check_expr(&mut self, cx: &LateContext<'tcx>, expr: &'tcx hir::Expr<'_>) {
if_chain! {
if !in_macro(expr.span);
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.ident.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<Symbol, usize>) -> 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
}