Add `unused_format_specs` lint
Currently catches two cases:
An empty precision specifier:
```rust
// the same as {}
println!("{:.}", x);
```
And using formatting specs on `format_args!()`:
```rust
// prints `x.`, not `x .`
println("{:5}.", format_args!("x"));
```
changelog: new lint: [`unused_format_specs`]
[`unnecessary_cast`] Do not lint negative hexadecimal literals when cast as floats
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9603
changelog: [`unnecessary_cast`] Do not lint negative hexadecimal literals when cast as floats
[`zero_prefixed_literal`] Do not advise to use octal form if not possible
fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9651
changelog: [`zero_prefixed_literal`] Do not advise to use octal form if not possible
Add new lint `partial_pub_fields`
Signed-off-by: TennyZhuang <zty0826@gmail.com>
*Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)*
changelog: `partial_pub_fields`: new lint to disallow partial fields of a struct be pub
Resolve#9604
Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules for `from_over_into`
Adds a machine applicable suggestion to convert the `Into` impl into a `From` one to `from_over_into`
Also adds a note explaining that `impl From<Local> for Foreign` is fine if the `Into` type is foreign
Closes#7444
Addresses half of #9638
changelog: [`from_over_into`] Add a suggestion and a note about orphan rules
Fix edition revision ui tests
#9605 had me wondering how the edition revision tests were working for `manual_assert` but not for `@nyurik,` but it turns out `manual_assert`'s tests weren't working either. I checked how `rust-lang/rust` does it and apparently it comes down to whitespace, `//[rev] edition:X` works 😬
Removes the revisions from `match_wild_err_arm` as I couldn't find any edition dependant behaviour there
r? `@llogiq`
changelog: none
add tests in `implicit_saturating_sub` lint
This adds more tests to the `implicit_saturating_sub` lint to rule out certain false positives that have appeared in the past.
Now with those false positives out of the equation, we can move the lint to `style`.
---
changelog: promote [`implicit-saturating-sub`] to the `style` category
Fix to_string_in_format_args in parens
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
Fixes#9540
changelog: [`to_string_in_format_args`]: fix incorrect fix when value is enclosed in parenthesis
Fix suggestions like
```
print!("error: something failed at {}", (Location::caller().to_string()));
```
where the parenthesis enclose some portion of the value.
Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
fixes#9608
changelog: Don't suggest moving tuple structs with a significant drop to late evaluation
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
Further enhance `needless_borrow`, mildly refactor `redundant_clone`
This PR does the following:
* Moves some code from `redundant_clone` into a new `clippy_utils` module called `mir`, and wraps that code in a function called `dropped_without_further_use`.
* Relaxes the "is copyable" condition condition from #9136 by also suggesting to remove borrows from values dropped without further use. The changes involve the just mentioned function.
* Separates `redundant_clone` into modules.
Strictly speaking, the last bullet is independent of the others. `redundant_clone` is somewhat hairy, IMO. Separating it into modules makes it slightly less so, by helping to delineate what depends upon what.
I've tried to break everything up into digestible commits.
r? `@Jarcho`
(`@Jarcho` I hope you don't mind.)
changelog: continuation of #9136
Add `manual_filter` lint for `Option`
Share much of its implementation with `manual_map` and should greatly benefit from its previous feedback.
I'm sure it's possible to even more refactor both and would gladly take input on that as well as any clippy idiomatic usage, since this is my first lint addition.
I've added the lint to the complexity section for now, I don't know if every new lint needs to go in nursery first.
The matching could be expanded to more than `Some(<value>)` to lint on arbitrary struct matching inside the `Some` but I've left it like it was for `manual_map` for now. `needless_match::pat_same_as_expr` provides a more generic match example.
close https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/8822
changelog: Add lint [`manual_filter`] for `Option`
extend `box-default` lint, add suggestion
This extends the recently added `box-default` lint to also cover `Box::new(vec![])`, `Box::new(String::from(""))` and `Box::new(Vec::from([]))`. Also the lint now suggests a suitable replacement. I did not find a simple way to check whether the type is fully determined by the outside, so I at least checked for some variations to remove the turbofish in those cases.
---
changelog: none
lint::unsafe_removed_from_name: fix false positive result when allowed
changelog: [`unsafe_removed_from_name`] Fix allowing on imports produces a false positive on `useless_attribute`.
Fixes: #9197
Signed-off-by: Andy-Python-Programmer <andypythonappdeveloper@gmail.com>
