+use clippy_utils::diagnostics::span_lint_and_sugg;
+use clippy_utils::source::snippet;
+use if_chain::if_chain;
use rustc_data_structures::fx::FxHashMap;
use rustc_errors::Applicability;
use rustc_hir::{self as hir, ExprKind};
use rustc_session::{declare_lint_pass, declare_tool_lint};
use rustc_span::symbol::Symbol;
-use if_chain::if_chain;
-
-use crate::utils::{snippet, span_lint_and_sugg};
-
declare_clippy_lint! {
- /// **What it does:** Checks for struct constructors where the order of the field init
- /// shorthand in the constructor is inconsistent with the order in the struct definition.
+ /// ### What it does
+ /// Checks for struct constructors where all fields are shorthand and
+ /// the order of the field init shorthand in the constructor is inconsistent
+ /// with the order in the struct definition.
///
- /// **Why is this bad?** Since the order of fields in a constructor doesn't affect the
+ /// ### Why is this bad?
+ /// Since the order of fields in a constructor doesn't affect the
/// resulted instance as the below example indicates,
///
/// ```rust
/// let x = 1;
/// let y = 2;
///
- /// // This assertion never fails.
+ /// // This assertion never fails:
/// assert_eq!(Foo { x, y }, Foo { y, x });
/// ```
///
- /// inconsistent order means nothing and just decreases readability and consistency.
- ///
- /// **Known problems:** None.
- ///
- /// **Example:**
+ /// inconsistent order can be confusing and decreases readability and consistency.
///
+ /// ### Example
/// ```rust
/// struct Foo {
/// x: i32,
/// }
/// let x = 1;
/// let y = 2;
+ ///
/// Foo { y, x };
/// ```
///
/// # let y = 2;
/// Foo { x, y };
/// ```
+ #[clippy::version = "1.52.0"]
pub INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR,
- style,
+ pedantic,
"the order of the field init shorthand is inconsistent with the order in the struct definition"
}
declare_lint_pass!(InconsistentStructConstructor => [INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR]);
-impl LateLintPass<'_> for InconsistentStructConstructor {
+impl<'tcx> LateLintPass<'tcx> for InconsistentStructConstructor {
fn check_expr(&mut self, cx: &LateContext<'tcx>, expr: &'tcx hir::Expr<'_>) {
if_chain! {
+ if !expr.span.from_expansion();
if let ExprKind::Struct(qpath, fields, base) = expr.kind;
let ty = cx.typeck_results().expr_ty(expr);
if let Some(adt_def) = ty.ty_adt_def();
then {
let mut def_order_map = FxHashMap::default();
for (idx, field) in variant.fields.iter().enumerate() {
- def_order_map.insert(field.ident.name, idx);
+ def_order_map.insert(field.name, idx);
}
if is_consistent_order(fields, &def_order_map) {
cx,
INCONSISTENT_STRUCT_CONSTRUCTOR,
expr.span,
- "inconsistent struct constructor",
+ "struct constructor field order is inconsistent with struct definition field order",
"try",
sugg,
Applicability::MachineApplicable,
// Check whether the order of the fields in the constructor is consistent with the order in the
// definition.
-fn is_consistent_order<'tcx>(fields: &'tcx [hir::Field<'tcx>], def_order_map: &FxHashMap<Symbol, usize>) -> bool {
+fn is_consistent_order<'tcx>(fields: &'tcx [hir::ExprField<'tcx>], def_order_map: &FxHashMap<Symbol, usize>) -> bool {
let mut cur_idx = usize::MIN;
for f in fields {
let next_idx = def_order_map[&f.ident.name];