feat: add duplicate_fn_bodies lint - #17527
Open
orielhaim wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! You should hear from one of our reviewers after this PR gets at least 2 reviews from the community. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (
|
|
Lintcheck changes for c389da1
This comment will be updated if you push new changes |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
This adds a small first step towards detecting duplicated code in Clippy.
duplicate_fn_bodieslooks for functions in the same crate whose bodies are textually identical, ignoring whitespace and comments.For now I intentionally kept the lint very conservative. It only handles Type-1 style clones: renamed locals, changed literals, reordered statements, etc. are considered different bodies. I wanted to start with the case that can be detected with very high confidence before considering anything more structural.
Checklist
.stderrfile)cargo testpasses locallycargo dev update_lintscargo dev fmtchangelog: new lint: [
duplicate_fn_bodies]