Hey folks. It's been a while since I added the `as_slice` method to
`Option`, and I totally forgot about a lint to suggest it. Well, I had
some time around Christmas, so here it is now.
---
changelog: add [`manual_option_as_slice`] lint
A `ref` pattern applied to an argument is not ignored. It creates a
reference as expected, but still requires the function to take ownership
of the argument given to it.
Removing the semicolon of the last statement of an expressionless block
may change the block type even if the statement's type is `()`. If the
block type is `!` because of a systematic early return, typing it as
`()` may make it incompatible with the expected type for the block (to
which `!` is cast).
Fix#14100
changelog: [`unnecessary_semicolon`]: do not remove semicolon if it
could change the block type from `!` to `()`
Commit 2550530266 has extended the
`precedence` lint to include bitmasking and shift operations. The lint
is warn by default, and this generates many hits, especially in embedded
or system code, where it is very idiomatic to use expressions such as `1
<< 3 | 1 << 5` without parentheses.
This commit splits the recent addition into a new lint, which is put
into the "restriction" category, while the original one stays in
"complexity", because mixing bitmasking and arithmetic operations is
less typical.
Fix#14097
changelog: [`precedence_bits`]: new lint
Commit 2550530266 has extended the
`precedence` lint to include bitmasking and shift operations. The lint
is warn by default, and this generates many hits, especially in embedded
or system code, where it is very idiomatic to use expressions such as
`1 << 3 | 1 << 5` without parentheses.
This commit splits the recent addition into a new lint, which is put
into the "restriction" category, while the original one stays in
"complexity", because mixing bitmasking and arithmetic operations is
less typical.
Removing the semicolon of the last statement of an expressionless block
may change the block type even if the statement's type is `()`. If the
block type is `!` because of a systematic early return, typing it as
`()` may make it incompatible with the expected type for the block (to
which `!` is cast).
fix#13959
The current implementation of the `write_literal` and `print_literal`
lint performs escaping for the second argument of `write!` ,`writeln!`,
`print!` and `println!` of the suggestion by first replacing `"` with
`\"`, and then replacing `\` with `\\`. Performing these replacements in
this order may lead to unnecessary backslashes being added if the
original code contains `"` (e.g. `"` -> `\\"`), potentially resulting in
a suggestion that causes the code to fail to compile.
In the issue mentioned above, it’s suggested to use raw strings as raw
strings, but implementing this would require an ad-hoc change to the
current implementation, so it has been deferred. (I'll implement this in
another PR)
changelog: [`write_literal`]: fix incorrect escaping of suggestions
changelog: [`print_literal`]: fix incorrect escaping of suggestions
Add a new lint `doc_overindented_list_items` to detect and fix list items
in docs that are overindented.
For example,
```rs
/// - first line
/// second line
fn foo() {}
```
this would be fixed to:
```rs
/// - first line
/// second line
fn foo() {}
```
This lint improves readabiliy and consistency in doc.
fix#14034
The currect implementation of `obfuscated_if_else` sometimes makes
incorrect suggestions when the original code have side effects (see the
example in the above issue). I think this can be fixed by changing the
applicability depending on whether it can have side effects or not.
changelog: [`obfuscated_if_else`]: change applicability when the
original code can have side effects
I opened https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13896 before.
However, I found that there're more cases where Clippy suggests to use
modules that belong to the `std` crate even in a `no_std` environment.
Therefore, this PR include the changes I've made in #13896 and new
changes to fix cases I found this time to prevent wrong suggestions in
`no_std` environments as well.
changelog: [`redundant_closure`]: correct suggestion in `no_std`
changelog: [`repeat_vec_with_capacity`]: correct suggestion in `no_std`
changelog: [`single_range_in_vec_init`]: don't emit suggestion to use
`Vec` in `no_std`
changelog: [`drain_collect`]: correct suggestion in `no_std`
changelog: [`map_with_unused_argument_over_ranges`]: correct suggestion
in `no_std`
also close#13895
Receivers which are references to `Option` and `Result`, or who
implement `Deref` to one of those types, will be linted as well.
changelog: [`unnecessary_map_or`]: work with ref and `Deref` to `Option`
and `Result` as well
Fixes#14023
**Note:** this patch must be merged after #13998 – only the second
commit must be reviewed, the first one repeats the patch in #13998 for
mergeability reasons.
part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9100
The `obfuscated_if_else` lint currently only triggers for the pattern
`.then_some(..).unwrap_or(..)`, but there're other cases where this lint
should be triggered, one of which is `.then(..).unwrap_or(..)`.
changelog: [`obfuscated_if_else`]: trigger lint for the
`.then(..).unwrap_or(..)` pattern as well
I ran across this message while writing code and thought it was quite
odd. I've simplified it and hopefully made it clearer for non-native
English speakers.
changelog: clarify message for non-obvious precedence
Without this check, the lint would suggest that
```rust
match test {
true if option == 5 => 10,
_ => 1,
};
```
is replaced by `if test { 10 } else { 1 }`.
changelog: [`match_bool`]: omit suggestion when guards are present in
`match` expression
Before edition 2024, some temporaries used in scrutinees of a `match`
used as the last expression of a block may outlive some referenced local
variables. Prevent those cases from happening by checking that alive
temporaries with significant drop do have a static lifetime.
The check is performed only for edition 2021 and earlier, and for the
last statement if it would become the last expression of the block.
changelog: [`unnecessary_semicolon`]: prevent borrow errors in editions
lower than 2024
r? @y21
Using `Vec::extend(std::iter::repeat_n(item, N))` allows to use the more
natural number of elements to add `N`, as is probably done in the
original loop, instead of computing the difference between the existing
number of elements and the wanted one.
Before MSRV 1.82, the older suggestion to use `Vec::resize()` is still
issued.
Inspired by #6156 (which predates `repeat_n()`).
changelog: [`same_item_push`]: recommend using `Vec::extend()` to extend
a vector
Before edition 2024, some temporaries used in scrutinees in a `match`
used as the last expression of a block may outlive some referenced
local variables. Prevent those cases from happening by checking that
alive temporaries with significant drop do have a static lifetime.
The check is performed only for edition 2021 and earlier, and for the
last statement if it would become the last expression of the block.
