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

New lint: unnecessary_map_or #11796

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 13, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor

@Jacherr Jacherr commented Nov 12, 2023

Closes #10118

This lint checks map_or method calls to check if they can be consolidated down to something simpler and/or more readable.

For example, the code

let x = Some(5);
x.map_or(false, |n| n == 5)

can be rewritten as

let x = Some(5);
x == Some(5)

In addition, when the closure is more complex, the code can be altered from, say,

let x = Ok::<Vec<i32>, i32>(vec![5]);
x.map_or(false, |n| n == [5])

into

let x = Ok::<Vec<i32>, i32>(vec![5]);
x.is_some_and(|n| n == [5])

This lint also considers cases where the map_or can be chained with other method calls, and accommodates accordingly by adding extra parentheses as needed to the suggestion.

changelog: add new lint unnecessary_map_or

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 12, 2023

r? @Centri3

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Nov 12, 2023
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member

@Jacherr this seems to be waiting on you, since Catherine left you a review.
@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties labels Mar 2, 2024
@Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jacherr commented Mar 7, 2024

Hi, apologies for the lack of movement on this. I’ll make changes based on the review now, and once everything is up to standard I’ll go through the conflicts.

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from ad74a63 to abd23dc Compare March 7, 2024 15:33
@Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jacherr commented Mar 8, 2024

@rustbot ready

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) labels Mar 8, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 9, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #12310) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from 2acf442 to 857081a Compare March 9, 2024 12:39
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 22, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #12507) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

Hey @Jacherr Sorry for the delay. @Centri3 was sadly busy, but now she indicated that she'll have time for reviews again. Would you mind rebasing again? Next time there is a long delay, you can also pick a new reviewer with r? clippy.

@Jacherr

This comment was marked as resolved.

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from 2f923e6 to c8341ac Compare June 22, 2024 11:26
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 27, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #12999) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@Centri3 Centri3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a couple more changes then this is good <3

tests/ui/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from 686975d to d305884 Compare June 28, 2024 22:33
@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

xFrednet commented Jul 2, 2024

Never mind: My GH view was outdated

@xFrednet
Copy link
Member

Hey, this is a ping from triage. @Centri3 can you give this PR a review? It's totally fine if you don't have the time right now, you can reassign the PR to a random team member using r? clippy.

@rustbot ready

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 27, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #13168) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_map_or.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 7, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #13496) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from 35ad982 to c150da9 Compare October 17, 2024 20:35
@Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jacherr commented Oct 17, 2024

Apologies for the slow turnover again. I hope this is the last of the issues now and this can finally be merged 😅

@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

samueltardieu commented Oct 17, 2024

It looks like you marked the comment in #11796 (comment) as resolved but it is not. The example:

fn main() {
    struct S;
    let r: Result<i32, S> = Ok(3);
    let _ = r.map_or(false, |x| x == 7);
}

will incorrectly suggest using (r == Ok(7)) (also, note the extra parentheses, but this is not the main problem, which is that Result<i32, S> does not implement PartialEq). A proposed fix is given in the linked comment.

Could you also add this as a testcase? As well as one where S is a type which implements PartialEq (such as i32), to check for the extra parentheses?

let _ = Some(5) == Some(5);
let _ = Some(5) != Some(5);
let _ = Some(5) == Some(5);
let _ = (Some(5) == Some(5));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These ( should be removed, shouldn't they?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is just an effect of maybe_par deciding they should be present. While I'd usually agree, I'm not sure there is a better way to tackle that?

Copy link
Member

@Centri3 Centri3 Oct 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe_par is rather overeager, but unused_parens will usually catch them anyway (outside of arithmetic, for readability). New lints triggering on fixed code in a cascade is fine

@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

Is it time to open a FCP for this lint? I keep seeing .map_or(false, …) used everywhere.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 29, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #13437) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Centri3
Copy link
Member

Centri3 commented Nov 3, 2024

Opened the FCP. Can you squash?

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch 2 times, most recently from 5e9ca40 to fc78116 Compare November 3, 2024 16:29
@Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jacherr commented Nov 3, 2024

Squash done, ready for final comments/changes then hopefully can finally get this merged. Apologies again for how long this took.

@samueltardieu samueltardieu mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2024
@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

samueltardieu commented Nov 4, 2024

@Jacherr It looks like .map_or(true, …) can be linted as well, using .is_none_or(…). I played with it a bit but I have to go AFK right now, so feel free to integrate the top commit from https://github.com/samueltardieu/rust-clippy/commits/push-oqltkmvvzmlq/ in your code if you wish, and update all the lints which trigger this code. Otherwise, I'll submit a complete PR after yours is merged.

Note that tests that don't involve PartialEq are machine applicable as far as I can see, so I've changed this as well, but not looked closely at why the others aren't.

@Centri3
Copy link
Member

Centri3 commented Nov 4, 2024

I am happy with merging this as-is if no concerns come up, and having that done later.

@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

I am happy with merging this as-is if no concerns come up, and having that done later.

This seems reasonable indeed.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 7, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #13639) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

@Jacherr Commit 430235e is an updated version of your commit compatible with the current master

@samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

(an alternative is to merge #13653 which contains this PR, updated, and the .map_or(true, …) case as well)

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from fc78116 to ca5b59a Compare November 12, 2024 22:30
@Jacherr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jacherr commented Nov 12, 2024

Hopefully, everything is in order for merge now. Ideally, as mentioned in the FCP, this can be merged and the additional map_or(true case added in post. It would be nice, at least for me, to put this PR to bed properly given how long it's been going back and forth.

@Jacherr Jacherr force-pushed the pattern-match-partialeq branch from 0e440e1 to 89210d7 Compare November 12, 2024 23:00
@Centri3 Centri3 added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 13, 2024
@Centri3
Copy link
Member

Centri3 commented Nov 13, 2024

Thanks for your work on this :) I doubt anybody will object the lint being added so let's put it to rest ❤️

Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit b829d53 Nov 13, 2024
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

== check instead of opt.map_or(false, |val| val == n) or if let Some(n) = opt
7 participants