Skip to content

remove deduplicate-diagnostics=no in suspicious_operation_groupings.stderr #13266

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

remove deduplicate-diagnostics=no in suspicious_operation_groupings.stderr #13266

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion clippy_lints/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ pub fn register_lints(store: &mut rustc_lint::LintStore, conf: &'static Conf) {
store.register_late_pass(|_| Box::new(fallible_impl_from::FallibleImplFrom));
store.register_late_pass(move |_| Box::new(question_mark::QuestionMark::new(conf)));
store.register_late_pass(|_| Box::new(question_mark_used::QuestionMarkUsed));
store.register_early_pass(|| Box::new(suspicious_operation_groupings::SuspiciousOperationGroupings));
store.register_early_pass(|| Box::new(suspicious_operation_groupings::SuspiciousOperationGroupings::new()));
store.register_late_pass(|_| Box::new(suspicious_trait_impl::SuspiciousImpl));
store.register_late_pass(|_| Box::new(map_unit_fn::MapUnit));
store.register_late_pass(|_| Box::new(inherent_impl::MultipleInherentImpl));
Expand Down
30 changes: 24 additions & 6 deletions clippy_lints/src/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ use rustc_ast::ast::{BinOpKind, Expr, ExprKind, StmtKind};
use rustc_data_structures::fx::FxHashSet;
use rustc_errors::Applicability;
use rustc_lint::{EarlyContext, EarlyLintPass};
use rustc_session::declare_lint_pass;
use rustc_session::impl_lint_pass;
use rustc_span::source_map::Spanned;
use rustc_span::symbol::Ident;
use rustc_span::Span;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -64,7 +64,21 @@ declare_clippy_lint! {
"groupings of binary operations that look suspiciously like typos"
}

declare_lint_pass!(SuspiciousOperationGroupings => [SUSPICIOUS_OPERATION_GROUPINGS]);
pub struct SuspiciousOperationGroupings {
// We need to keep track of which spans we've already linted, so we don't
// emit the same lint multiple times.
seen: FxHashSet<Span>,
}

impl_lint_pass!(SuspiciousOperationGroupings => [SUSPICIOUS_OPERATION_GROUPINGS]);

impl SuspiciousOperationGroupings {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Self {
seen: FxHashSet::default(),
}
}
}

impl EarlyLintPass for SuspiciousOperationGroupings {
fn check_expr(&mut self, cx: &EarlyContext<'_>, expr: &Expr) {
Expand All @@ -73,7 +87,7 @@ impl EarlyLintPass for SuspiciousOperationGroupings {
}

if let Some(binops) = extract_related_binops(&expr.kind) {
check_binops(cx, &binops.iter().collect::<Vec<_>>());
check_binops(cx, &binops.iter().collect::<Vec<_>>(), &mut self.seen);

let mut op_types = Vec::with_capacity(binops.len());
// We could use a hashmap, etc. to avoid being O(n*m) here, but
Expand All @@ -89,13 +103,13 @@ impl EarlyLintPass for SuspiciousOperationGroupings {
for op_type in op_types {
let ops: Vec<_> = binops.iter().filter(|b| b.op == op_type).collect();

check_binops(cx, &ops);
check_binops(cx, &ops, &mut self.seen);
}
}
}
}

fn check_binops(cx: &EarlyContext<'_>, binops: &[&BinaryOp<'_>]) {
fn check_binops(cx: &EarlyContext<'_>, binops: &[&BinaryOp<'_>], seen: &mut FxHashSet<Span>) {
let binop_count = binops.len();
if binop_count < 2 {
// Single binary operation expressions would likely be false
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -152,7 +166,7 @@ fn check_binops(cx: &EarlyContext<'_>, binops: &[&BinaryOp<'_>]) {

if let Some(expected_loc) = expected_ident_loc {
match (no_difference_info, double_difference_info) {
(Some(i), None) => attempt_to_emit_no_difference_lint(cx, binops, i, expected_loc),
(Some(i), None) => attempt_to_emit_no_difference_lint(cx, binops, i, expected_loc, seen),
(None, Some((double_difference_index, ident_loc1, ident_loc2))) => {
if one_ident_difference_count == binop_count - 1
&& let Some(binop) = binops.get(double_difference_index)
Expand All @@ -168,6 +182,7 @@ fn check_binops(cx: &EarlyContext<'_>, binops: &[&BinaryOp<'_>]) {
};

if let Some(sugg) = ident_swap_sugg(cx, &paired_identifiers, binop, changed_loc, &mut applicability)
&& seen.insert(binop.span)
{
emit_suggestion(cx, binop.span, sugg, applicability);
}
Expand All @@ -183,6 +198,7 @@ fn attempt_to_emit_no_difference_lint(
binops: &[&BinaryOp<'_>],
i: usize,
expected_loc: IdentLocation,
seen: &mut FxHashSet<Span>,
) {
if let Some(binop) = binops.get(i).copied() {
// We need to try and figure out which identifier we should
Expand All @@ -203,6 +219,7 @@ fn attempt_to_emit_no_difference_lint(
&& old_ident != new_ident
&& let Some(sugg) =
suggestion_with_swapped_ident(cx, binop.left, expected_loc, new_ident, &mut applicability)
&& seen.insert(binop.span)
{
emit_suggestion(
cx,
Expand All @@ -217,6 +234,7 @@ fn attempt_to_emit_no_difference_lint(
&& old_ident != new_ident
&& let Some(sugg) =
suggestion_with_swapped_ident(cx, binop.right, expected_loc, new_ident, &mut applicability)
&& seen.insert(binop.span)
{
emit_suggestion(
cx,
Expand Down
2 changes: 0 additions & 2 deletions tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.fixed
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
//@compile-flags: -Zdeduplicate-diagnostics=yes

#![warn(clippy::suspicious_operation_groupings)]
#![allow(dead_code, unused_parens, clippy::eq_op)]

Expand Down
2 changes: 0 additions & 2 deletions tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
//@compile-flags: -Zdeduplicate-diagnostics=yes

#![warn(clippy::suspicious_operation_groupings)]
#![allow(dead_code, unused_parens, clippy::eq_op)]

Expand Down
62 changes: 25 additions & 37 deletions tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.stderr
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:17:9
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:15:9
|
LL | self.x == other.y && self.y == other.y && self.z == other.z
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `self.x == other.x`
Expand All @@ -8,154 +8,142 @@ LL | self.x == other.y && self.y == other.y && self.z == other.z
= help: to override `-D warnings` add `#[allow(clippy::suspicious_operation_groupings)]`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:30:20
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:28:20
|
LL | s1.a < s2.a && s1.a < s2.b
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b < s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:78:33
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:76:33
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s2.b + s1.c * s2.b + s1.d * s2.d
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:83:19
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:81:19
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s2.c + s1.c * s2.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:83:19
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s2.c + s1.c * s2.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:88:19
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This error is identical to the one at line 23, so it can be safely removed.

--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:86:19
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s2.b * s2.b + s1.c * s2.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:93:19
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:91:19
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s1.b + s1.c * s2.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:98:5
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:96:5
|
LL | s1.a * s1.a + s1.b * s2.b + s1.c * s2.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.a * s2.a`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:103:33
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:101:33
|
LL | s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s2.b + s1.c * s1.c
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:116:20
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:114:20
|
LL | (s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s1.b)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:121:34
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:119:34
|
LL | (s1.a * s2.a + s1.b * s2.b + s1.c * s2.b + s1.d * s2.d)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:126:38
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:124:38
|
LL | (s1.a * s2.a) + (s1.b * s2.b) + (s1.c * s2.b) + (s1.d * s2.d)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:131:39
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:129:39
|
LL | ((s1.a * s2.a) + (s1.b * s2.b) + (s1.c * s2.b) + (s1.d * s2.d))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:136:42
|
LL | (((s1.a * s2.a) + (s1.b * s2.b)) + ((s1.c * s2.b) + (s1.d * s2.d)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:136:42
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kyoto7250 kyoto7250 Aug 13, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This error is identical to the one at line 77 91, so it can be safely removed.

edit: I made a mistake with the line numbers in the comment

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this would indicate there's a place that should be using span_lint_hir_and_then but is not

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In this lint, span_lint_and_sugg is used, but what is the difference between it and span_lint_hir_and_then?
It seems to me that specifying hir may not be necessary in this case.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It tells the compiler at what node the lint is being emitted for the purposes of #[allow]/etc, if not specified it will be the node that check_xxx was called on

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please let me confirm my understanding. I think this duplicate error output is coming from both sides of binOp.
I still don't understand the relationship between solving this problem and the need to use span_lint_hir_and_then.

--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:134:42
|
LL | (((s1.a * s2.a) + (s1.b * s2.b)) + ((s1.c * s2.b) + (s1.d * s2.d)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:141:40
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:139:40
|
LL | (((s1.a * s2.a) + (s1.b * s2.b) + (s1.c * s2.b)) + (s1.d * s2.d))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:146:40
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:144:40
|
LL | ((s1.a * s2.a) + ((s1.b * s2.b) + (s1.c * s2.b) + (s1.d * s2.d)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c * s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:151:20
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:149:20
|
LL | (s1.a * s2.a + s2.b * s2.b) / 2
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:156:35
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:154:35
|
LL | i32::swap_bytes(s1.a * s2.a + s2.b * s2.b)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b * s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:161:29
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:159:29
|
LL | s1.a > 0 && s1.b > 0 && s1.d == s2.c && s1.d == s2.d
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c == s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:166:17
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:164:17
|
LL | s1.a > 0 && s1.d == s2.c && s1.b > 0 && s1.d == s2.d
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.c == s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:175:77
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:173:77
|
LL | (n1.inner.0).0 == (n2.inner.0).0 && (n1.inner.1).0 == (n2.inner.1).0 && (n1.inner.2).0 == (n2.inner.1).0
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `(n1.inner.2).0 == (n2.inner.2).0`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:189:25
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:187:25
|
LL | s1.a <= s2.a && s1.a <= s2.b
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b <= s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:195:23
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:193:23
|
LL | if s1.a < s2.a && s1.a < s2.b {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `s1.b < s2.b`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:202:48
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:200:48
|
LL | -(-(-s1.a * -s2.a) + (-(-s1.b * -s2.b) + -(-s1.c * -s2.b) + -(-s1.d * -s2.d)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `-s1.c * -s2.c`

error: this sequence of operators looks suspiciously like a bug
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:207:27
--> tests/ui/suspicious_operation_groupings.rs:205:27
|
LL | -(if -s1.a < -s2.a && -s1.a < -s2.b { s1.c } else { s2.a })
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `-s1.b < -s2.b`

error: aborting due to 26 previous errors
error: aborting due to 24 previous errors