Added lint for TryFrom for checked integer conversion.
works towards #3947
Added lint for try_from for checked integer conversion.
Should recognize simple & straight-forward checked integer conversions.
Changes:
- Add a function search_same_list which return a list of matched expressions
- Change the match_same_arms implementation behaviour. It will lint each same arms found.
Move the method checking into a new lint called
`redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group.
This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest.
cc #3942
Fix#4033 search_is_some
Fixes#4033.
Suggest `any(|x| ..)` instead of `any(|&x| ..)` for `find(|&x| ..).is_some()` (Lint [search_is_some](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#search_is_some))
FnDecl of `find`:
```rust
fn find<P>(&mut self, mut p: P) -> Option<Self::Item> where
P: FnMut(&Self::Item) -> bool
```
FnDecl of `any`:
```rust
fn any<F>(&mut self, mut f: F) -> bool where
F: FnMut(Self::Item) -> bool
```
If match on `|&_|` in closure of `find`, only use `|_|` in the suggestion.
PS. It's the first time that I have used the `hir` API, please correct me if there is any mistake 😺
useless_let_if_seq handle interior mutability
fixes#3043
This passes all tests, including a new one specifically dealing with a type with interior mutability. The main thing I'm unsure of is whether the span I used in the call to `is_freeze` is the most appropriate span to use, or if it matters.
Suggest .copied() for map_clone on iterators too
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3958
changelog: Make `map_clone` suggest the newly-stable `Iterator::copied()` when applicable
r? @mikerite @matthiaskrgr
Do not trigger redundant_closure for non-function types
fixes#3898
Added a check for the entity being called in the closure body to be a FnDef. This way lint does not trigger for ADTs (Box) but I'm not sure if it's correct and not too restrictive.
<!--
Thank you for making Clippy better!
We're collecting our changelog from pull request descriptions.
If your PR only updates to the latest nightly, you can leave the
`changelog` entry as `none`. Otherwise, please write a short comment
explaining your change.
If your PR fixes an issue, you can add "fixes #issue_number" into this
PR description. This way the issue will be automatically closed when
your PR is merged.
If you added a new lint, here's a checklist for things that will be
checked during review or continuous integration.
- [ ] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming]
- [ ] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file)
- [ ] `cargo test` passes locally
- [ ] Executed `util/dev update_lints`
- [ ] Added lint documentation
- [ ] Run `cargo fmt`
Note that you can skip the above if you are just opening a WIP PR in
order to get feedback.
Delete this line and everything above before opening your PR -->
changelog: Fix false positive in `redundant_closure` pertaining to non-function types
Ignore non-const ctor expressions in or_fn_call
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/1338
Should have been fixed by #919, however that focuses on const ctor expressions only, and `.or(Some(local))` isn't const.
This also automatically ignores things like `.or(Some(local.clone())` which we don't actually want to do; I need to figure out what to do here.
changelog: Fixed false positive in [`or_fn_call`] pertaining to enum variant constructors
r? @oli-obk @phansch
Allow allowing of toplevel_ref_arg lint
I'm not sure why some lints need the `HirId` to be able to recognize the
lint level attributes, but this commit makes the lint level attributes
work for `toplevel_ref_arg`.
Fixes#2332
changelog: Allow allowing of `toplevel_ref_arg` lint
Fix false positive in module_name_repetitions lint
This lint was triggering on modules inside expanded attrs, like
for example `#[cfg(test)]` and possibly more.
It was not reporting a location in #3892 because `span.lo()` and `span.hi()` both were 0.
Fixes#3892
changelog: Fix false positive in `module_name_repetitions` lint
I'm not sure why some lints need the `HirId` to be able to recognize the
lint level attributes, but this commit makes the lint level attributes
work for `toplevel_ref_arg`.
Change naive_bytecount applicability to MaybeIncorrect
We can't use `MachineApplicable` here as applying the fix will cause
another error because `bytecount` would first have to be added to the
Cargo.toml.
Example:
```
error: You appear to be counting bytes the naive way
--> $DIR/bytecount.rs:5:13
|
LL | let _ = x.iter().filter(|&&a| a == 0).count(); // naive byte count
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: Consider using the bytecount crate: `bytecount::count(x, 0)`
```
Just replacing it with the suggestion is not enough.
cc #3630
Change while_let_loop applicability to HasPlaceholders
The suggestion has been changed at some point to use `..` in the suggested code.
Due to that we can't make the lint MachineApplicable anymore.
cc #3630
This was causing two different ICEs in #3741.
The first was fixed in #3925.
The second one is fixed with this commit: We just don't `expect`
anymore. If the snippet doesn't contain an `else`, we stop emitting the
lint because it's not a suspiciously formatted else anyway.
Fix ICE in decimal_literal_representation lint
Handling the integer parsing properly instead of just unwrapping.
Note that the test is not catching the ICE because plain UI tests
[currently hide ICEs][compiletest_issue]. Once that issue is fixed, this
test would fail properly again.
Fixes#3891
[compiletest_issue]: https://github.com/laumann/compiletest-rs/issues/169
Handling the integer parsing properly instead of just unwrapping.
Note that the test is not catching the ICE because plain UI tests
[currently hide ICEs][compiletest_issue]. Once that issue is fixed, this
test would fail properly again.
[compiletest_issue]: https://github.com/laumann/compiletest-rs/issues/169
Fix `explicit_counter_loop` suggestion
#1670
This code seems to me to work, but I have two question.
* Because range expression desugared in hir, `Sugg::hir` doesn't add parenthesis to range expression. Which function is better to check range do you think, `check_for_loop_explicit_counter` or `hir_from_snippet`?
* Do you think we need to distinguish between range expression and struct expression that creates `std::ops::Range*`?
* Late Lint pass, catches:
* One liner: 0 -> null -> transmute
* One liner: std:null() -> transmute
* Const (which resolves to null) -> transmute
* UI Test case for Lint
* Updated test for issue 3849, because now the lint that code generated is in Clippy.
* Expanded `const.rs` miri-based Constant Folding code, to cover
raw pointers
