Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rollup of 9 pull requests #92883

Merged
merged 118 commits into from
Jan 14, 2022
Merged

Rollup of 9 pull requests #92883

merged 118 commits into from
Jan 14, 2022

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

nbdd0121 and others added 30 commits October 20, 2021 19:42
This amends off of an existing test introduced in rust-lang#81769, if you think I
should make a separate test I will.
…elid,xFrednet

Update pulldown-cmark version to 0.9

Fixes rust-lang#92206.

r? `@camelid`
Clippy helpfully warns about code like this, telling you that you
probably meant "write_all":

    fn say_hi<W:Write>(w: &mut W) {
       w.write(b"hello").unwrap();
    }

This patch attempts to extend the lint so it also covers this
case:

    async fn say_hi<W:AsyncWrite>(w: &mut W) {
       w.write(b"hello").await.unwrap();
    }

(I've run into this second case several times in my own programming,
and so have my coworkers, so unless we're especially accident-prone
in this area, it's probably worth addressing?)

This patch covers the Async{Read,Write}Ext traits in futures-rs,
and in tokio, since both are quite widely used.

changelog: [`unused_io_amount`] now supports AsyncReadExt and AsyncWriteExt.
This improves the quality of the genrated output and makes it
more in line with other lint messages.

changelog: [`unused_io_amount`]: Improve help text
…Frednet

Extend unused_io_amount to cover async io.

Clippy helpfully warns about code like this, telling you that you
probably meant "write_all":

    fn say_hi<W:Write>(w: &mut W) {
       w.write(b"hello").unwrap();
    }

This patch attempts to extend the lint so it also covers this
case:

    async fn say_hi<W:AsyncWrite>(w: &mut W) {
       w.write(b"hello").await.unwrap();
    }

(I've run into this second case several times in my own programming,
and so have my coworkers, so unless we're especially accident-prone
in this area, it's probably worth addressing?)

Since this is my first attempt at a clippy patch, I've probably
made all kinds of mistakes: please help me fix them?  I'd like
to learn more here.

Open questions I have:

  * Should this be a separate lint from unused_io_amount?  Maybe
    unused_async_io_amount?  If so, how should I structure their
    shared code?
  * Should this cover tokio's AsyncWrite too?
  * Is it okay to write lints for stuff that isn't part of
    the standard library?  I see that "regex" also has lints,
    and I figure that "futures" is probably okay too, since it's
    an official rust-lang repository.
  * What other tests are needed?
  * How should I improve the code?

Thanks for your time!

---

changelog: [`unused_io_amount`] now supports async read and write traits
…earth

fix [`redundant_closure`] fp with `Rc<F>`/`Arc<F>`

fixes rust-lang#8073

changelog: don't trigger [`redundant_closure`] on `Arc<F>` or `Rc<F>`
The `wrong_self_convention` lint uses a `SelfKind` type to decide
whether a method has the right kind of "self" for its name, or whether
the kind of "self" it has makes its name confusable for a method in
a common trait.  One possibility is `SelfKind::No`, which is supposed
to mean "No `self`".

Previously, SelfKind::No matched everything _except_ Self, including
references to Self.  This patch changes it to match Self, &Self, &mut
Self, Box<Self>, and so on.

For example, this kind of method was allowed before:

```
impl S {
    // Should trigger the lint, because
    // "methods called `is_*` usually take `self` by reference or no `self`"
    fn is_foo(&mut self) -> bool { todo!() }
}
```

But since SelfKind::No matched "&mut self", no lint was triggered
(see rust-lang#8142).

With this patch, the code above now gives a lint as expected.

Fixes rust-lang#8142

changelog: [`wrong_self_convention`] rejects `self` references in more cases
Remove existing problematic cases.
Inspired by a discussion in rust-lang/rust-clippy#8197

---

r? `@llogiq`

changelog: none

The lint is this on nightly, therefore no changelog entry for you xD
…uct, r=llogiq

return_self_not_must_use document `#[must_use]` on the type

Inspired by a discussion in rust-lang/rust-clippy#8197

---

r? `@llogiq`

changelog: none

The lint is this on nightly, therefore no changelog entry for you xD
wrong_self_convention: Match `SelfKind::No` more restrictively

The `wrong_self_convention` lint uses a `SelfKind` type to decide
whether a method has the right kind of "self" for its name, or whether
the kind of "self" it has makes its name confusable for a method in
a common trait.  One possibility is `SelfKind::No`, which is supposed
to mean "No `self`".

Previously, SelfKind::No matched everything _except_ Self, including
references to Self.  This patch changes it to match Self, &Self, &mut
Self, Box<Self>, and so on.

For example, this kind of method was allowed before:

```
impl S {
    // Should trigger the lint, because
    // "methods called `is_*` usually take `self` by reference or no `self`"
    fn is_foo(&mut self) -> bool { todo!() }
}
```

But since SelfKind::No matched "&mut self", no lint was triggered
(see rust-lang#8142).

With this patch, the code above now gives a lint as expected.

fixes rust-lang#8142

changelog: [`wrong_self_convention`] rejects `self` references in more cases
…xFrednet

[`erasing_op`] lint ignored when operation `Output` type is different from the type of constant `0`

fixes rust-lang#7210

changelog: [`erasing_op`] lint ignored when operation `Output` type is different from the type of constant `0`
Remove `NullOp::Box`

Follow up of rust-lang#89030 and MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#460.

~1 month later nothing seems to be broken, apart from a small regression that rust-lang#89332 (1aac85bb716c09304b313d69d30d74fe7e8e1a8e) shows could be regained by remvoing the diverging path, so it shall be safe to continue and remove `NullOp::Box` completely.

r? `@jonas-schievink`
`@rustbot` label T-compiler
…rednet

Fix `clippy::use-self`` warning in ` src/main.rs`

`ClippyCmd` warnings gets generated due to addition of `clippy::use-self`. This PR fixes that.

```
warning: unnecessary structure name repetition
  --> src/main.rs:99:9
   |
99 |         ClippyCmd {
   |         ^^^^^^^^^ help: use the applicable keyword: `Self`
   |
   = note: `-W clippy::use-self` implied by `-W clippy::nursery`
   = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#use_self
```

---

changelog: none
Consider auto-deref when linting `manual_swap`

fixes rust-lang#8154

changelog: Don't lint `manual_swap` when a field access involves auto-deref
Allow `_` as the length of array types and repeat expressions

r? `@BoxyUwU` cc `@varkor`
changelog: none

Sorry, this is a big one. A lot of interrelated changes and I wanted to put the new utils to use to make sure they are somewhat battle-tested. We may want to divide some of the lint-specific refactoring commits into batches for smaller reviewing tasks. I could also split into more PRs.

Introduces a bunch of new utils at `clippy_utils::macros::...`. Please read through the docs and give any feedback! I'm happy to introduce `MacroCall` and various functions to retrieve an instance. It feels like the missing puzzle piece. I'm also introducing `ExpnId` from rustc as "useful for Clippy too". `@rust-lang/clippy`

Fixes rust-lang#7843 by not parsing every node of macro implementations, at least the major offenders.

I probably want to get rid of `is_expn_of` at some point.
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Jan 14, 2022
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=9

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2022

📌 Commit 2ae4afd has been approved by matthiaskrgr

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jan 14, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 2ae4afd with merge 6d6ff03543e07b9152b485017f0a8abd84351a32...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2022

💥 Test timed out

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jan 14, 2022
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

matthiaskrgr commented Jan 14, 2022

@bors retry x86_64-msvc-1 hang or timeout
https://github.com/rust-lang-ci/rust/runs/4815055569?check_suite_focus=true#logs

Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:09 GMT [TIMING] Crate { compiler: Compiler { stage: 2, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc", file: None } }, target: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc", file: None }, mode: Rustc, test_kind: Test, krate: "rustc_log" } -- 1.996
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:09 GMT [TIMING] CrateLibrustc { compiler: Compiler { stage: 2, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc", file: None } }, target: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc", file: None }, test_kind: Test, krate: "rustc_log" } -- 0.000
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:09 GMT Set({"compiler\\rustc_macros"}) not skipped for "bootstrap::test::CrateLibrustc" -- not in ["src/test/ui", "src/tools/linkchecker"]
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:09 GMT Testing rustc_macros stage1 (x86_64-pc-windows-msvc -> x86_64-pc-windows-msvc)
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] build_script_build test:false 0.817
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] unicode_xid test:false 0.171
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] build_script_build test:false 0.762
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] proc_macro2 test:false 2.057
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] quote test:false 0.854
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] syn test:false 19.046
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] synstructure test:false 2.317
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT [RUSTC-TIMING] rustc_macros test:false 5.005
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT    Compiling rustc_macros v0.1.0 (D:\a\rust\rust\compiler\rustc_macros)
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 15:38:55 GMT Error: The operation was canceled.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 14, 2022
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 2ae4afd with merge ad46af2...

@klensy
Copy link
Contributor

klensy commented Jan 14, 2022

Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:38:10 GMT Compiling rustc_macros v0.1.0 (D:\a\rust\rust\compiler\rustc_macros)
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 15:38:55 GMT Error: The operation was canceled.

Last few fails was on rustc_macros too.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing ad46af2 to master...

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (ad46af2): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-uoudywx branch February 13, 2022 00:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.