[`infinite_loops`]: fix incorrect suggestions on async functions/closures
closes: #12338
I intend to fix this in #12421 but got distracted by some other problems in the same lint, delaying the process of closing the actual issue. So here's a separated PR that only focus on the issue and nothing else.
---
changelog: [`infinite_loops`]: fix suggestion error on async functions/closures
Cleanup code suggestion for `into_iter_without_iter`
Reorder the suggested code for the `IntoIterator` to match the ordering of the trait declaration:
```rust
impl IntoIterator for ... {
type Item = ...;
type IntoIter = ...;
```
changelog: none
Add 'CoAP' to doc-valid-idents
CoAP is a name of a network protocol common in embedded systems; one would talk in documentation about "a CoAP server" or "a CoAP client" without referring to a specific type.
This PR fixes false positives that arise from that use.
changelog: [`doc_markdown`]: Add CoAP to `doc-valid-idents`.
As this review is identical in structure to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13460, I'm asking for a the same reviewer (if that works):
r? `@Centri3`
Reorder the suggested code for the `IntoIterator` to match the ordering of the trait declaration:
```rust
impl IntoIterator for ... {
type Item = ...;
type IntoIter = ...;
```
Fix allow_attributes when expanded from some macros
fixes#13349
The issue here was that the start pattern being matched on the original source code was not specific enough. When using derive macros or in the issue case a `#[repr(C)]` the `#` would match the start pattern meaning that the expanded macro appeared to be unchanged and clippy would lint it.
The change I made was to make the matching more specific by matching `#[ident` at the start. We still need the second string to match just the ident on its own because of things like `#[cfg_attr(panic = "unwind", allow(unused))]`.
I also noticed some typos with start and end, these code paths weren't being reached so this doesn't fix anything.
changelog: FP: [`allow_attributes`]: don't trigger when expanded from some macros
This lint checks for code that looks like
```rust
let something : Vec<_> = (0..100).map(|_| {
1 + 2 + 3
}).collect();
```
which is more clear as
```rust
let something : Vec<_> = std::iter::repeat_with(|| {
1 + 2 + 3
}).take(100).collect();
```
or
```rust
let something : Vec<_> =
std::iter::repeat_n(1 + 2 + 3, 100)
.collect();
```
That is, a map over a range which does nothing with the parameter
passed to it is simply a function (or closure) being called `n`
times and could be more semantically expressed using `take`.
fix incorrect suggestion for `!(a >= b) as i32 == c`
fixes#12761
The expression `!(a >= b) as i32 == c` got simplified to `a < b as i32 == c`, but this is a syntax error.
The result we want is `(a < b) as i32 == c`.
This is fixed by adding a parenthesis to the suggestion given in `check_simplify_not` when the boolean expression is casted.
changelog: [`nonminimal_bool`]: fix incorrect suggestion for `!(a >= b) as i32 == c`
Add units/unit prefixes of frequency to doc-valid-idents
These units/unit prefixes often come up in the embedded world.
Should this PR also modify the `test_units` test? It seems only concerned with data units currently; should it also test frequency units?
changelog: [`doc_markdown`]: Add MHz, GHz, and THz to `doc-valid-idents`.
Add debug assertions for empty replacements and overlapping spans
rustc has debug assertions [^1] [^2] that check that a substitution doesn't have an empty suggestion string and an empty span at the same time, as well as that spans in multipart suggestions don't overlap.
However, since we link to the rustc-dev distributed compiler, these debug assertions are always disabled and so we never actually run them.
This leads to the problem that the debug ICE is not necessarily caught in the PR and only triggered in the rust repo sync, and in one of the last syncs this was a blocker and delayed the sync by several weeks because the fix was not obvious.
So this PR essentially copies the checks over and runs them in clippy debug builds as well, so that we can catch these errors in PRs directly.
-----
As for the second commit, this also *did* cause an ICE in a sync before and was fixed in the sync PR (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120345#issuecomment-1911005554), but it seems like that commit didn't make it back into the clippy repo (cc `@flip1995),` so the fixed code is in the rust repo but not in the clippy repo.
changelog: none
[^1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.82.0/nightly-rustc/src/rustc_errors/diagnostic.rs.html#1019
[^2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.82.0/nightly-rustc/src/rustc_errors/diagnostic.rs.html#932
The expansion of `asm!()` and `line!()` is not marked as from an expansion, in which case `SourceMap::stmt_span` returns the input span unchanged. So instead of using `stmt_span`, use `mac_call_stmt_semi_span` directly
Use correct std/core prefix in lint output
changelog: none
I was waiting for #13452 to be merged before sending this one. `std` is used instead of `core` when appropriate in messages.
Fix lint `manual_slice_size_calculation` when a slice is ref more than once
When a slice is ref more than once, current suggestion given by `manual_slice_size_calculation` is wrong. For example:
```rs
let s: &[i32] = &[1, 2][..];
let ss: &&[i32] = &s; // <-----
let _ = size_of::<i32>() * ss.len();
```
clippy now suggests:
```patch
- let _ = size_of::<i32>() * ss.len();
+ let _ = size_of_val(ss);
```
However, this can result in calculating the size of `&[i32]`, instead of `[i32]` (this wrong suggestion also leads to `size_of_ref` warning: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/size_of_ref )
Now I am sending this PR to fix this bug, so that clippy will suggest (some deref added):
```patch
- let _ = size_of::<i32>() * ss.len();
+ let _ = size_of_val(*ss);
```
As I am not familiar with current clippy code-base, please correct me if I am not doing well or I can do it better :)
changelog: [`manual_slice_size_calculation`]: fix a bug when a slice is ref more than once.
[`implicit_saturating_sub`] Fix suggestion with a less volatile approach
Related to #13533, such and obvious mistake got pass my watch, quite embarassing :/
Revert #13533 and implement a more robust solution.
Revert "Fix span issue on `implicit_saturating_sub`
This reverts commit 140a1275f2.
changelog: [`lint_name`]: Fix suggestion for `if {} else if {} else {}` cases
r? `@y21`
Improved wording of or_fun_call lint
The current wording (e.g. ``use of `ok_or` followed by a function call``) is potentially confusing (at least it confused me) by suggesting that the function that follows the (in this case) `ok_or` is the problem and not the function that is an argument to it.
The code in my program that triggered the confusing message is the following:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or((
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
))
.html_context(stream, lang)?;
```
I thought that `html_context` was the problem and that I should do something along the following lines:
```rust
let file_id = buf
.lines()
.next()
.ok_or_else(
(
InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
),
html_context(stream, lang),
)?
```
This is of course wrong. My confusion was only cleared up through the help message indicating what I should try instead.
If someone has a better idea of a replacement wording (currently e.g. ``` function call inside of `ok_or` ```), I'm all ears.
changelog: none
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Fix large_stack_arrays triggering when nesting const items
Fixes#13529.
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: [`large_stack_arrays`]: No longer triggers in static/const context when using nested items
Don't warn on proc macro generated code in `needless_return`
Fixes#13458Fixes#13457Fixes#13467Fixes#13479Fixes#13481Fixes#13526Fixes#13486
The fix is unfortunately a little more convoluted than just simply adding a `is_from_proc_macro`. That check *does* fix the issue, however it also introduces a bunch of false negatives in the tests, specifically when the returned expression is in a different syntax context, e.g. `return format!(..)`.
The proc macro check builds up a start and end pattern based on the HIR nodes and compares it to a snippet of the span, however that would currently fail for `return format!(..)` because we would have the patterns `("return", <something inside of the format macro>)`, which doesn't compare equal. So we now return an empty string pattern for when it's in a different syntax context.
"Hide whitespace" helps a bit for reviewing the proc macro detection change
changelog: none
Don't warn on proc macro generated code in `needless_return`
Fixes#13458Fixes#13457Fixes#13467Fixes#13479Fixes#13481Fixes#13526Fixes#13486
The fix is unfortunately a little more convoluted than just simply adding a `is_from_proc_macro`. That check *does* fix the issue, however it also introduces a bunch of false negatives in the tests, specifically when the returned expression is in a different syntax context, e.g. `return format!(..)`.
The proc macro check builds up a start and end pattern based on the HIR nodes and compares it to a snippet of the span, however that would currently fail for `return format!(..)` because we would have the patterns `("return", <something inside of the format macro>)`, which doesn't compare equal. So we now return an empty string pattern for when it's in a different syntax context.
"Hide whitespace" helps a bit for reviewing the proc macro detection change
changelog: none
