rust-lang / rust-lang/rust-clippy
map_collect_result_unit does not recognize for loop
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 13.5k
- Forks
- 2.2k
- Avg merge
- 2d 10h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 32
Description
What it does
This is a suggestion for the map_collect_result_unit lint.
I just refactored this piece of code:
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
for (uuid, err) in self.0.iter() {
writeln!(f, "{}: {}", uuid, err)?;
}
Ok(())
}
into this:
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
self.0.iter().map(|(uuid, err)| writeln!(f, "{}: {}", uuid, err)).collect()
}
And then the lint told me that I can do
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
self.0.iter().try_for_each(|(uuid, err)| writeln!(f, "{}: {}", uuid, err))
}
But maybe it is possible that the lint also tells me that my first version can be written better?
I don't know whether this is possible, but it would be nice to catch the for-loop-version as well here.
Categories (optional)
- Kind:
clippy::style
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the map_collect_result_unit lint implementation and its existing tests. Compare how the lint recognizes iterator-based collection with how it analyzes for loops, then determine whether the example should produce the same try_for_each suggestion. Done means the supported loop form is handled and regression coverage verifies the suggested rewrite.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- devtools
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100