Simplify negative Option::{is_some_and,is_none_or}

[SpriteOvO]

Closes #13436.

Improved based on the existing lint nonminimal_bool, since there is already handling of similar methods Option::{is_some,is_none} and Result::{is_ok,is_err}, and there is a lot of reusable code.

When is_some_and or is_none_or have a negation, we invert it into another method by removing the Not sign and inverting the expression in the closure.

For the case where the closure block has statements, currently no simplification is implemented. (Should we do it?)

// Currently will not simplify this
_ = !opt.is_some_and(|x| {
    let complex_block = 100;
    x == complex_block
});

changelog: [nonminimal_bool]: Simplify negative Option::{is_some_and,is_none_or}

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @xFrednet (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

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 (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[xFrednet]

Since simplify_not is called recursively on closures, could you add a recursive test? Something like this:

let opt_opt = Some(opt);
!opt_opt.is_some_and(|x| !x.is_some_and(|y| y != 1000));

I just want to make sure that the output is correct

[SpriteOvO]

Nice catch! The test triggers an error cannot replace slice of data that was already replaced. I'm trying to fix it.

[xFrednet]

Ahh, that happens if two suggestions overlap. Don't spend too much time on it. Overlapping suggestions are okay if they are still correct. You can also just create a second test file that doesn't run rustfix.

[SpriteOvO]

Learned it! It looks like for users, rustfix will apply the first fix and ignore the subsequent. So !opt_opt.is_some_and(|x| !x.is_some_and(|y| y != 1000)) will be fixed to opt_opt.is_none_or(|x| x.is_some_and(|y| y != 1000)).

I have added the test case to the PR.

[xFrednet]

Hey and welcome to Clippy. Excellent start! I only have one tiny comment, for an additional test and then this will be good to go! :D

[SpriteOvO]

@xFrednet Thanks for the review! I'm trying to start regularly contributing to Rust, as the docs said clippy is a good place to start, hopefully I can stick with it. 😄

[xFrednet]

This version looks good to me, thank you for the changes! :D

I'm trying to start regularly contributing to Rust, as the docs said clippy is a good place to start, hopefully I can stick with it.

That's what got me into Clippy as well. It felt like rustc was way too complex and Clippy is more approachable with focussed lint passes and reasonable compile times. And now I stick around due to the people and history :D

Good luck! I hope you find interesting issues to work on =^.^=

---

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Let's get this merged,
here and now!

With a special thanks to @SpriteOvO

[bors]

📌 Commit 762a91b has been approved by xFrednet

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 762a91b with merge 398be8c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: xFrednet
Pushing 398be8c to master...