Merge some lints together

[ThibsG]

This PR merges following lints:

• block_in_if_condition_expr and block_in_if_condition_stmt → blocks_in_if_conditions
• option_map_unwrap_or, option_map_unwrap_or_else and result_map_unwrap_or_else → map_unwrap
• option_unwrap_used and result_unwrap_used → unwrap_used
• option_expect_used and result_expect_used → expect_used
• wrong_pub_self_convention into wrong_self_convention
• for_loop_over_option and for_loop_over_result → for_loops_over_fallibles

Lints that have already been merged since the issue was created:

• new_without_default and new_without_default_derive → new_without_default

Need more discussion:

• string_add and string_add_assign: do we agree to merge them or not? Is there something more to do? → not merge finally
• identity_op and modulo_one → useless_arithmetic: seems outdated, since modulo_arithmetic has been created.

fixes #1078

changelog: Merging some lints together:

• block_in_if_condition_expr and block_in_if_condition_stmt → blocks_in_if_conditions
• option_map_unwrap_or, option_map_unwrap_or_else and result_map_unwrap_or_else → map_unwrap_or
• option_unwrap_used and result_unwrap_used → unwrap_used
• option_expect_used and result_expect_used → expect_used
• for_loop_over_option and for_loop_over_result → for_loops_over_fallibles

[ThibsG]

Btw, i'm not sure about changelog message, feel free to modify it.

[flip1995]

• block_in_if_condition_expr and block_in_if_condition_stmt → block_in_if_condition

✔️

• option_map_unwrap_or, option_map_unwrap_or_else and result_map_unwrap_or_else → map_unwrap

❌ → map_unwrap_or

• option_unwrap_used and result_unwrap_used → unwrap_used

✔️

• option_expect_used and result_expect_used → expect_used

✔️

• wrong_pub_self_convention into wrong_self_convention

❌ This is intentional, since the first one is a sylte lint and the second one is a restriction lint

• for_loop_over_option and for_loop_over_result → for_loop_over_fallible

✔️

Need more discussion:

• string_add and string_add_assign: do we agree to merge them or not? Is there something more to do?

✔️ And move it to restriction

• identity_op and modulo_one → useless_arithmetic: seems outdated, since modulo_arithmetic has been created.

❌ modulo_one is different from modulo_arithmetic (correctness vs restriction) also different intentions. I would also left identity_op separated, but would like some input on others for this one.

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[ThibsG]

❌ → map_unwrap_or

Lint renamed.

• wrong_pub_self_convention into wrong_self_convention

❌ This is intentional, since the first one is a sylte lint and the second one is a restriction lint

Commit deleted, lint is back.

• string_add and string_add_assign: do we agree to merge them or not? Is there something more to do?

✔️ And move it to restriction

Done

• identity_op and modulo_one → useless_arithmetic: seems outdated, since modulo_arithmetic has been created.

❌ modulo_one is different from modulo_arithmetic (correctness vs restriction) also different intentions. I would also left identity_op separated, but would like some input on others for this one.

cc @rust-lang/clippy

No problem let's wait for feedback

[Manishearth]

@flip1995's suggestions seem good, though i'm a bit wary of the string_add one.

Also we should set these up as renamed lints so the old names still work and we have proper diagnostics.

[flip1995]

though i'm a bit wary of the string_add one.

Oh I should have read the description of those lints more carefully. I thought one lints x = x + s and the other x += s.

After reading it more carefully I would also keep them as separate lints. @ThibsG can you revert the commit for string_add? Sorry for the back and forth.

[ThibsG]

The string_add commit has been dropped and lints are now registered as renamed.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #5583) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[ThibsG]

Do I need to change something in CHANGELOG.md ?

[flip1995]

singular -> plural for 2 lint names. Otherwise this LGTM.

In the CHANGELOG.md you have to remove old links to the old names. The offending lines are as follows:

     201:3-201:27  
     285:5-285:27  
     286:5-286:27  
    398:27-398:56  
    398:61-398:90  
    451:25-451:49  
    797:47-797:76  
   1071:3-1071:27  
  1071:32-1071:61  
  1090:33-1090:57  
   1091:3-1091:27  

Just remove the [] around the lint names.

Sorry for not re-reviewing for so long, force pushes to PRs sometimes don't show up in the GH notifications.

[flip1995]

Thanks!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ab87f87 has been approved by flip1995

[flip1995]

@bors p=1

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ab87f87 with merge cfd720d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: flip1995
Pushing cfd720d to master...