-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Add suspicious group #7350
Add suspicious group #7350
Conversation
r? @giraffate (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Let's talk about this in our meeting later today, before we finalize this. |
r? @flip1995 (reassigning, since @giraffate takes a short break) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes look good to me. I focused on the addition in the metadata collection monster and that looks correct. It's nice to see that it's as simple as planned :)
In today's meeting there was no veto to going forward with this. As Manish pointed out, I'll go through the Clippy RFC to see if something prevents us to do this, but we can probably do this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reading the RFC, there's nothing preventing us from adding lint groups. Though, we can't really remove a group after adding it.
I still have to look at the lints separately.
I like it! Not sure if any lints are missing from the list, but those who are there seem to be about right. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for taking so long to review. The lints that were moved LGTM. One typo in the readme is left, otherwise r=me (after squashing the fixups).
Oh, it would also be great, if you could edit the PR description to include from which group a lint was moved for each lint, so that writing the changelog for this will be easier :) |
Added remark-gfm in order to allow the table on the readme to exceed the maximum width. See remarkjs/remark-lint#249 (comment). Needed this after updating the description of clippy::all to mention suspicious. |
Done! I'll let you review one more time for the remark change. |
Remark changes also LGTM. Thanks! @bors r+ |
📌 Commit 5b5f0ea has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
changelog: Introduce
clippy::suspicious
🤔 group and move several lints into the groupCloses #6366. CC #6626.
A number of lints are moved from each of
correctness
,style
andcomplexity
groups. Notably I didn't movesuspicious_splitn
since I think that is acorrectness
lint despite the name.Lints moved to
clippy::suspicious
:blanket_clippy_restriction_lints
(wasclippy::style
)empty_loop
(wasclippy::style
)eval_order_dependence
(wasclippy::complexity
)float_equality_without_abs
(wasclippy::correctness
)for_loops_over_fallibles
(wasclippy::correctness
)misrefactored_assign_op
(wasclippy::complexity
)mut_range_bound
(wasclippy::complexity
)mutable_key_type
(wasclippy::correctness
)suspicious_arithmetic_impl
(wasclippy::correctness
)suspicious_assignment_formatting
(wasclippy::style
)suspicious_else_formatting
(wasclippy::style
)suspicious_map
(wasclippy::complexity
)suspicious_op_assign_impl
(wasclippy::correctness
)suspicious_unary_op_formatting
(wasclippy::style
)