-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint #80723
Conversation
r? @davidtwco (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
r? @estebank since I helped a tiny bit with this :) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
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.
Leaving one nitpick to provide a structured suggestion for one-click application on VSCode. It'll also change the output slightly to be a bit more verbose, but hopefully it'll look good.
Otherwise, r=me.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
library/core/tests/iter.rs
Outdated
@@ -3509,7 +3509,7 @@ pub fn extend_for_unit() { | |||
#[test] | |||
fn test_intersperse() { | |||
let xs = ["a", "", "b", "c"]; | |||
let v: Vec<&str> = xs.iter().map(|x| x.clone()).intersperse(", ").collect(); |
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.
@Aaron1011 We've already talked about this, but I am worried about calling this call a "noop" might make some users confused. The method call has the effect of dereferencing the double reference. The specific method itself does nothing but the mere act of making a method call does have an effect. This distinction is subtle, and I'm worried this may lead to situations like this one where we recommend removing the method call which actually breaks the code.
cc @estebank
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.
I think that what could be done is check the type of expr
and see if it is different to the type of the method receiver (check if one is and the other is not a borrow). The "correct" check would be to see if this is coming from a impl Clone &T
, but that seems like it would be harder to implement than the proposed heuristic.
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.
i tried to do this, but I was not ever able to resolve the return type of the method to something that could be equated to the receiver. I'm not sure how to resolve the return type of the method (which is Self
) to a type that can be equated with the receiver.
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.
What happens if you do cx.typeck_results().expr_ty(expr);
? Doesn't that give you the resulting type of (in this case) x.clone()
? If so, then you can compare (probably for direct equality would work) against x
's type (which you already have in receiver_ty
) and emit the lint of !=
. Could you try that out? Otherwise we can merge without that and I can build on this. If all of this works, then we could have a MachineApplicable
structured suggestion (either inline or tool only) to remove the call entirely with a high degree of confidence.
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.
@estebank I already tried cx.typeck_results().expr_ty(expr);
and it returns Self
as the type in the case of Clone::clone
which is not equal to the receiver type unfortunately. If you have any additional ideas, I'd be happy to try them!
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.
Can you try calling expr_ty_adjusted
(for both the receiver and expr)?
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
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.
I love all the .clone()
calls being removed from the repo thanks to the new lint <3
library/core/tests/iter.rs
Outdated
@@ -3509,7 +3509,7 @@ pub fn extend_for_unit() { | |||
#[test] | |||
fn test_intersperse() { | |||
let xs = ["a", "", "b", "c"]; | |||
let v: Vec<&str> = xs.iter().map(|x| x.clone()).intersperse(", ").collect(); |
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.
I think that what could be done is check the type of expr
and see if it is different to the type of the method receiver (check if one is and the other is not a borrow). The "correct" check would be to see if this is coming from a impl Clone &T
, but that seems like it would be harder to implement than the proposed heuristic.
Ok, so I took a few looks and this is weird as all hell, but I think I got something that works correctly (but is ugly and brittle): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...estebank:noop-lint-pass?expand=1 |
@estebank I don't love it because it hard codes even more specifics about the types we currently care about which will make it harder to extend, but if you think this is right move for now, I'm happy to cherry pick your commit into my branch. What do you say? |
@rylev I prefer accuracy even if it adds tech debt, as long as it is called out. I added another commit to my branch doing some code clean up to my preference and tweaked the comments. Feel free to disregard those if you disagree with it. |
@estebank I've cherry-picked your changes. This looks good to me. Thanks for helping me get this over the finish line! |
⌛ Testing commit 25637b2 with merge 3dc624b76ef132e8e82730a067cd0d769df3837b... |
If this fails like #80527 (comment) did, the tree should probably be closed until the ESLint issue is fixed. |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
Unrelated failure happened again: @bors treeclosed=100 |
Actually not sure if only |
@bors retry |
…k-Simulacrum Pin es-check version to prevent unrelated CI failures es-check v5.2.1 causes a lot of unrelated CI failures on mingw-check, e.g. rust-lang#80723 (comment). es-check v5.2.2 fixes it but let's pin its version to prevent further failures.
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint Implements the beginnings of rust-lang/lang-team#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 ❤️.
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint Implements the beginnings of rust-lang/lang-team#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 ❤️.
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#80723 (Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint) - rust-lang#80763 (resolve: Reduce scope of `pub_use_of_private_extern_crate` deprecation lint) - rust-lang#81136 (Improved IO Bytes Size Hint) - rust-lang#81939 (Add suggestion `.collect()` for iterators in iterators) - rust-lang#82289 (Fix underflow in specialized ZipImpl::size_hint) - rust-lang#82728 (Avoid unnecessary Vec construction in BufReader) - rust-lang#82764 (Add {BTreeMap,HashMap}::try_insert) - rust-lang#82770 (Add assert_matches macro.) - rust-lang#82773 (Add diagnostic item to `Default` trait) - rust-lang#82787 (Remove unused code from main.js) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implements the beginnings of rust-lang/lang-team#67 - a lint for detecting noop method calls (e.g, calling
<&T as Clone>::clone()
whenT: !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:
ToOwned
The implementation uses
Instance::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 forneeds_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 ❤️.