| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Right now, rustdoc users have an unpleasant situation: they can either
use the new tool lint names (`rustdoc::non_autolinks`) or they can use
the old names (`non_autolinks`). If they use the tool lints, they get a
hard error on stable compilers, because rustc rejects all tool names it
doesn't recognize. If they use the old name, they get a warning to
rename the lint to the new name. The only way to compile without
warnings is to add `#[allow(renamed_removed_lints)]`, which defeats the
whole point of the change: we *want* people to switch to the new name.
To avoid people silencing the lint and never migrating to the tool lint,
this avoids warning about the old name, while still allowing you to use
the new name. Once the new `rustdoc` tool name makes it to the stable
channel, we can change these lints to warn again.
This adds the new lint functions `register_alias` and `register_ignored`
- I didn't see an existing way to do this.
|
|
Rename `rustdoc` to `rustdoc::all`
When rustdoc lints were changed to be tool lints, the `rustdoc` group was removed, leading to spurious warnings like
```
warning: unknown lint: `rustdoc`
```
The lint group still worked when rustdoc ran, since rustdoc added the group itself.
This renames the group to `rustdoc::all` for consistency with `clippy::all` and the rest of the rustdoc lints.
Follow-up to #80527.
r? ``@Manishearth``
|
|
When rustdoc lints were changed to be tool lints, the `rustdoc` group
was removed, leading to spurious warnings like
```
warning: unknown lint: `rustdoc`
```
The lint group still worked when rustdoc ran, since rustdoc added the group itself.
This renames the group to `rustdoc::all` for consistency with
`clippy::all` and the rest of the rustdoc lints.
|
|
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint
Implements the beginnings of https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/67 - a lint for detecting noop method calls (e.g, calling `<&T as Clone>::clone()` when `T: !Clone`).
This PR does not fully realize the vision and has a few limitations that need to be addressed either before merging or in subsequent PRs:
* [ ] No UFCS support
* [ ] The warning message is pretty plain
* [ ] Doesn't work for `ToOwned`
The implementation uses [`Instance::resolve`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/instance/struct.Instance.html#method.resolve) which is normally later in the compiler. It seems that there are some invariants that this function relies on that we try our best to respect. For instance, it expects substitutions to have happened, which haven't yet performed, but we check first for `needs_subst` to ensure we're dealing with a monomorphic type.
Thank you to ```@davidtwco,``` ```@Aaron1011,``` and ```@wesleywiser``` for helping me at various points through out this PR ❤️.
|
|
|
|
Note that the FIXME was removed because this can't be fixed,
`register_renamed` calls LintId::of and there's no LintId for rustdoc
lints when rustc is running.
|
|
- Move MISSING_CRATE_LEVEL_DOCS to rustdoc directly
- Update documentation
This also takes the opportunity to make the `no-crate-level-doc-lint`
test more specific.
|
|
- Use `register_renamed` when rustdoc is running so the lint will still
be active and use a structured suggestion
- Test the behavior for rustc, not just for rustdoc (because it differs)
|
|
- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
|
|
This extends the `panic_fmt` lint to warn for all cases where the first
argument cannot be interpreted as a format string, as will happen in
Rust 2021.
It suggests to add `"{}", ` to format the message as a string. In the
case of `std::panic!()`, it also suggests the recently stabilized
`std::panic::panic_any()` function as an alternative.
It renames the lint to `non_fmt_panic` to match the lint naming
guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dogfood {exclusive,half-open} ranges in compiler (nfc)
In particular, this allows us to write more explicit matches that
avoid the pitfalls of using a fully general fall-through case, yet
remain fairly ergonomic. Less logic is in guard cases, more is in
the actual exhaustive case analysis.
No functional changes.
|
|
In particular, this allows us to write more explicit matches that
avoid the pitfalls of using a fully general fall-through case, yet
remain fairly ergonomic. Less logic is in guard cases, more is in
the actual exhaustive case analysis.
No functional changes.
|
|
|
|
Unclosed html tag lint
Part of #67799.
I think `@ollie27` will be interested (`@Manishearth` too since they opened the issue ;) ).
r? `@jyn514`
|
|
|
|
|
|
separate lints
This is not ideal because it means `deny(broken_intra_doc_links)` will
no longer `deny(private_intra_doc_links)`. However, it can't be fixed
with a new lint group, because `broken` is already in the `rustdoc` lint
group; there would need to be a way to nest groups somehow.
This also removes the early `return` so that the link will be generated
even though it gives a warning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
