bors [Fri, 8 May 2020 10:34:50 +0000 (10:34 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5541 - DarkEld3r:patch-1, r=flip1995
Extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.
---
changelog: extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
bors [Wed, 6 May 2020 09:49:00 +0000 (09:49 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5566 - oli-obk:sync-from-rustc, r=flip1995
Update to rustc changes
changelog: none
So, turns out `git subtree push` dies in various interesting ways, but the source cause is that the rustc repo looks like
```
--- A --- B --- C ---
\--- D ---/
```
where `B` is the commit where I added clippy to rustc and `D` is an arbitrary other PR and `C` is the master branch (or an earlier commit in it). When we now do `git subtree push`, it doesn't stop looking for things to merge at `B` as it needs to look at `D`, too, but then the bad thing happens, and it doesn't stop at `A` either, and just goes on looking at the entire history of rustc in a recursive bash script. That recursion then quickly runs into a stack overflow. While we can increase the stack size via `ulimit -s 60000`, that just means I was waiting for 30 minutes looking at `git subtree push` counting up the number of commits it has looked at. I aborted that, as a process that needs 30 mins for a push is not reasonable.
This PR cheats by just doing a `cp -r ../rustc/src/tools/clippy/* .` inside my clippy checkout and committing all changes. I'm working on getting us a better workflow, but until then, this workaround will work nicely. Note that this requires a `git subrepo pull` to have occurred in the `rustc` checkout. It's not necessary to merge that pull in order to update clippy, it's just necessary in order to not revert code in the clippy repo that hasn't been synced yet to the rustc repo.
bors [Sat, 2 May 2020 13:53:39 +0000 (13:53 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5550 - ebroto:manual_non_exhaustive, r=flip1995
Implement the manual_non_exhaustive lint
Some implementation notes:
* Not providing automatic fixups because additional changes may be needed in other parts of the code, e.g. when constructing a struct.
* Even though the attribute is valid on enum variants, it's not possible to use the manual implementation of the pattern because the visibility is always public, so the lint ignores enum variants.
* Unit structs are also ignored, it's not possible to implement the pattern manually without fields.
* The attribute is not accepted in unions, so those are ignored too.
* Even though the original issue did not mention it, tuple structs are also linted because it's possible to apply the pattern manually.
changelog: Added the manual non-exhaustive implementation lint
bors [Sat, 2 May 2020 08:11:48 +0000 (08:11 +0000)]
Auto merge of #5536 - rail-rain:fix_manual_memcpy, r=phansch
Fix the bugs of `manual_memcpy`, simplify the suggestion and refactor it
While I’m working on the long procrastinated work to expand `manual_memcpy`(#1670), I found a few minor bugs and probably unidiomatic or old coding style. There is a brief explanation of changes to the behaviour this PR will make below. And, I have a questoin: do I need to add tests for the first and second fixed bugs? I thought it might be too rare cases to include the tests for those. I added for the last one though.
* Bug fix
* It negates resulted offsets (`src/dst_offset`) when `offset` is subtraction by 0. This PR will remove any subtraction by 0 as a part of minification.
```rust
for i in 0..5 {
dst[i - 0] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..5 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..-5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..5].clone_from_slice(&src[..5])`
|
```
* It prints `RangeTo` or `RangeFull` when both of `end` and `offset` are 0, which have different meaning. This PR will print 0. I could reject the cases `end` is 0, but I thought I won’t catch other cases `reverse_range_loop` will trigger, and it’s over to catch every such cases.
```rust
for i in 0..0 {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
```
```diff
warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
LL | for i in 0..0 {
- | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst.clone_from_slice(&src[..])`
+ | ^^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[..0].clone_from_slice(&src[..0])`
|
```
* it prints four dots when `end` is `None`. This PR will ignore any `for` loops without `end` because a `for` loop that takes `RangeFrom` as its argument and contains indexing without the statements or the expressions that end loops such as `break` will definitely panic, and `manual_memcpy` should ignore the loops with such control flow.
```rust
fn manual_copy(src: &[u32], dst: &mut [u32]) {
for i in 0.. {
dst[i] = src[i];
}
}
```
```diff
-warning: it looks like you're manually copying between slices
- --> src/main.rs:2:14
- |
-LL | for i in 0.. {
- | ^^^ help: try replacing the loop by: `dst[....].clone_from_slice(&src[....])`
- |
```
* Simplification of the suggestion
* It prints 0 when `start` or `end` and `offset` are same (from #3323). This PR will use `RangeTo`
changelog: fixed the bugs of `manual_memcpy` and also simplify the suggestion.
Stanislav Tkach [Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:08:38 +0000 (12:08 +0300)]
Extend example for the `unneeded_field_pattern` lint
Current example is incorrect (or pseudo-code) because a struct name is omitted. I have used the code from the tests instead. Perhaps this example can be made less verbose, but I think it is more convenient to see a "real" code as an example.
Auto merge of #5522 - CrazyRoka:match_vec_item, r=phansch
New lint `match_vec_item`
Added new lint to warn a match on index item which can panic. It's always better to use `get(..)` instead.
Closes #5500
changelog: New lint `match_on_vec_items`
Auto merge of #5506 - ebroto:mismatched_target_os, r=flip1995
Implement mismatched_target_os lint
I've extended the check suggested in the issue to all the currently supported operating systems instead of limiting it to `linux` and `macos`, let me know if we want to do this.
Also, I've restored the text `There are over XXX lints ...` in the README as it was matched against by `cargo dev new_lint`.
changelog: Added `mismatched_target_os` lint to warn when an operating system is used in target family position in a #[cfg] attribute
- Show just one error message with multiple suggestions in case of
using multiple times an OS in target family position
- Only suggest #[cfg(unix)] when the OS is in the Unix family
- Test all the operating systems
Auto merge of #5527 - flip1995:rollup-pr2htfd, r=flip1995
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #5408 (Downgrade match_bool to pedantic)
- #5505 (Avoid running cargo+internal lints when not enabled)
- #5516 (Add a note to the beta sections of release.md)
- #5517 (Deploy time travel)
- #5523 (Add lifetime test case for `new_ret_no_self`)
Philipp Krones [Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:06:30 +0000 (21:06 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #5517 - flip1995:deploy_time_travel, r=Manishearth
Deploy time travel
Since not only commits to the master branch, but also tags and the beta branch are deployed, we have to be cautious which version of the deploy script is used. GHA always runs the workflow that is commited on the `ref`, that gets tested. For tagged commits. this is 6 weeks outdated workflows/scripts. To prevent this, this workflow first checks out the deploy.sh script, the website templates and all python scripts generating files for the website.
Philipp Krones [Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:06:26 +0000 (21:06 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #5408 - dtolnay:matchbool, r=flip1995
Downgrade match_bool to pedantic
I don't quite buy the justification in https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/. The justification is:
> It makes the code less readable.
In the Rust codebases I've worked in, I have found people were comfortable using `match bool` (selectively) to make code more readable. For example, initializing struct fields is a place where the indentation of `match` can work better than the indentation of `if`:
It looks like after changing to "there are more than 120 lints", an older PR was merged
and resolving merge conflicts this was changed back to "there are 123 lints" causing the update-script to silently fail.
Changed back the README.md back to the new format fixes the problem.
projects / rust.git / log