Add new lint `hashset_insert_after_contains`
This PR closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11103.
This is my first PR creating a new lint (and the second attempt of creating this PR, the first one I was not able to continue because of personal reasons). Thanks for the patience :)
The idea of the lint is to find insert in hashmanps inside if staments that are checking if the hashmap contains the same value that is being inserted. This is not necessary since you could simply call the insert and check for the bool returned if you still need the if statement.
changelog: new lint: [hashset_insert_after_contains]
Fix some false-positive cases of `explicit_auto_deref`
changelog: [`explicit_auto_deref`] Fix some false-positive cases
Fix part of #9841
Fix #12969
r? xFrednet
Honor `avoid-breaking-exported-api` in `needless_pass_by_ref_mut`
Until now, the lint only emitted a warning, when breaking public API. Now it doesn't lint at all when the config value is not set to `false`, bringing it in line with the other lints using this config value.
Also ensures that this config value is documented in the lint.
changelog: none
(I don't think a changelog is necessary, since this lint is in `nursery`)
---
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11374
cc `@GuillaumeGomez`
Marking as draft: Does this lint even break public API? If I change a function signature from `fn foo(x: &mut T)` to `fn foo(x: &T)`, I can still call it with `foo(&mut x)`. The only "breaking" thing is that the `clippy::unnecessary_mut_passed` lint will complain that `&mut` at the callsite is not necessary, possibly trickling down to the crate user having to remote a `mut` from a variable. [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=058165a7663902e84af1d23e35c10d66).
Are there examples where this actually breaks public API, that I'm missing?
Until now, the lint only emitted a warning, when breaking public API. Now it
doesn't lint at all when the config value is not set to `false`, bringing it in
line with the other lints using this config value.
Also ensures that this config value is documented in the lint.
Fix#12964 - false positive with `into_iter_without_iter`
changelog: FP: `into_iter_without_iter`: No longer lints when the `iter` or `iter_mut` implementation is not within the first `impl` block
fixes#12964
---
I'm pretty new to this open-source thing, so hopefully I did everything right. Got a little annoyed this false positive was happening in my code and the issue was inactive for two weeks so I thought I'd fix it myself.
As an aside, maybe `iter.map(...).next()` could be linted against? I don't see that ever being preferred over `iter.next().map(...)`, and it could've prevented the bug here.
Don't lint `assertions_on_constants` on any const assertions
close#12816close#12847
cc #12817
----
changelog: Fix false positives in consts for `assertions_on_constants` and `unnecessary_operation`.
`manual_inspect`: fix `clippy::version` from 1.78.0 to 1.81.0
Although `manual_inspect`'s PR started some months ago, the lint is only available in the current nightly (1.81.0), rather than 1.78.0.
```
changelog: [`manual_inspect`]: fix `clippy::version` from 1.78.0 to 1.81.0
```
Although `manual_inspect`'s PR started some months ago, the lint is only
available in the current nightly (1.81.0), rather than 1.78.0.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
doc_lazy_continuation: blank comment line for gap
This change addresses cases where doc comments are separated by blank lines, comments, or non-doc-comment attributes, like this:
```rust
/// - first line
// not part of doc comment
/// second line
```
Before this commit, Clippy gave a pedantically-correct warning about how you needed to indent the second line. This is unlikely to be what the user intends, and has been described as a "false positive." Since Clippy is warning you about a highly unintuitive behavior [that Rustdoc actually has](https://notriddle.com/rustdoc-html-demo-11/lazy-continuation-bad/test_dingus_2024/constant.D.html), we definitely want it to output *something*, but the suggestion to indent was poor.
Fixes#12917
```
changelog: [`doc_lazy_continuation`]: suggest blank line for likely-unintended lazy continuations
```
This change addresses cases where doc comments are separated
by blank lines, comments, or non-doc-comment attributes,
like this:
```rust
/// - first line
// not part of doc comment
/// second line
```
Before this commit, Clippy gave a pedantically-correct
warning about how you needed to indent the second line.
This is unlikely to be what the user intends, and has
been described as a "false positive" (since Clippy is
warning you about a highly unintuitive behavior that
Rustdoc actually has, we definitely want it to output
*something*, but the suggestion to indent was poor).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/12917
bump strip-ansi-escapes
This bumps `strip-ansi-escapes` to remove arrayvec from it's deps (https://github.com/luser/strip-ansi-escapes/pull/8)
Should Cargo.lock be commited too to track it's working state?
changelog: none
Fix doc_markdown DevOps false positive
This fixes an issue where the word "DevOps" ends up as a false positive for the `doc_markdown` lint.
In a doc comment like this
```rust
/// Call the Azure DevOps REST API.
pub fn example() {}
```
the word "DevOps" is highlighted as something which should be in backticks.
```
warning: item in documentation is missing backticks
--> src/lib.rs:1:20
|
1 | /// Call the Azure DevOps REST API.
| ^^^^^^
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#doc_markdown
= note: requested on the command line with `-W clippy::doc-markdown`
help: try
|
1 | /// Call the Azure `DevOps` REST API.
| ~~~~~~~~
warning: `example` (lib) generated 1 warning (run `cargo clippy --fix --lib -p example` to apply 1 suggestion)
Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.00s
```
This could be overriden with the `doc-valid-idents` configuration parameter as noted by the [documentation](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/doc_markdown), but I believe the word "DevOps" is sufficiently common to belong alongside exceptions like "GitHub" and "GitLab".
changelog: [`doc_markdown`]: Fix DevOps false positive.
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d49994b060684af423339b55769439b2f444a7b9/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs#L236-L237https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d49994b060684af423339b55769439b2f444a7b9/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs#L2829https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d49994b060684af423339b55769439b2f444a7b9/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs#L1290
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d49994b060684af423339b55769439b2f444a7b9/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs#L217-L221
ast: Standardize visiting order for attributes and node IDs
This should only affect `macro_rules` scopes and order of diagnostics.
Also add a deprecation lint for `macro_rules` called outside of their scope, like in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535.
bors