Don't assume lang items will exist.

[Jarcho]

Should fix lintcheck warnings caused by #6823
See below

changelog: None

[rust-highfive]

r? @flip1995

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[flip1995]

@matthiaskrgr can you test, if this fixes the issue, please?

[matthiaskrgr]

For the record; the command I use to test is cargo dev-lintcheck (it will build clippy, download and lint some test-sources and dump everything into a log file). You can check the difference against the last update with git diff after running.

It does not look like the patch made a different though, hm. :/

[Jarcho]

On closer investigation, those are all legitimate lints. Now to figure out why they didn't trigger before.

[Jarcho]

Turns out match_path isn't really suitable for most uses . match_path reverses both paths, then truncates the longer one before comparing. This works in the common case where only the trait name is used. In libc, the Clone trait is exported from the root module, and all uses of it are through ::Clone, which will never match the path core::clone::Clone.

Should probably remove all uses of match_path, they probably have the same issue.

[Jarcho]

This still makes a technically correct change, even if it doesn't actually fix anything.

[flip1995]

I don't think this PR makes things better, since it only moves the Option == Option comparison into a map_or closure. This rather hurts the readability.

[Jarcho]

It does change the behaviour when the clone trait dosen't exist. I'm not sure if that will ever happen.

[flip1995]

Oh right. In that case, this makes sense.

[flip1995]

@bors r+

Thanks!

[bors]

📌 Commit f2d917e has been approved by flip1995

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f2d917e with merge 627e910...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: flip1995
Pushing 627e910 to master...