Move get_unwrap to restriction

fixes #3862

Author: Manishearth

clippy_lints/src/lib.rs

@@ -583,6 +583,7 @@ pub fn register_plugins(reg: &mut rustc_plugin::Registry<'_>, conf: &Conf) {
         matches::WILDCARD_ENUM_MATCH_ARM,
         mem_forget::MEM_FORGET,
         methods::CLONE_ON_REF_PTR,
+        methods::GET_UNWRAP,
         methods::OPTION_UNWRAP_USED,
         methods::RESULT_UNWRAP_USED,
         methods::WRONG_PUB_SELF_CONVENTION,
@@ -749,7 +750,6 @@ pub fn register_plugins(reg: &mut rustc_plugin::Registry<'_>, conf: &Conf) {
         methods::CLONE_ON_COPY,
         methods::EXPECT_FUN_CALL,
         methods::FILTER_NEXT,
-        methods::GET_UNWRAP,
         methods::INTO_ITER_ON_ARRAY,
         methods::INTO_ITER_ON_REF,
         methods::ITER_CLONED_COLLECT,
@@ -908,7 +908,6 @@ pub fn register_plugins(reg: &mut rustc_plugin::Registry<'_>, conf: &Conf) {
         matches::SINGLE_MATCH,
         mem_replace::MEM_REPLACE_OPTION_WITH_NONE,
         methods::CHARS_LAST_CMP,
-        methods::GET_UNWRAP,
         methods::INTO_ITER_ON_REF,
         methods::ITER_CLONED_COLLECT,
         methods::ITER_SKIP_NEXT,

clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs

@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ declare_clippy_lint! {
     /// some_vec[0] = 1;
     /// ```
     pub GET_UNWRAP,
-    style,
+    restriction,
     "using `.get().unwrap()` or `.get_mut().unwrap()` when using `[]` would work instead"
 }
 

tests/ui/get_unwrap.rs

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 // run-rustfix
 #![allow(unused_mut)]
+#![deny(get_unwrap)]
 
 use std::collections::BTreeMap;
 use std::collections::HashMap;

tests/ui/get_unwrap.stderr

@@ -1,79 +1,79 @@
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:33:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:34:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = boxed_slice.get(1).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&boxed_slice[1]`
    |
    = note: `-D clippy::get-unwrap` implied by `-D warnings`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:34:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:35:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_slice.get(0).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_slice[0]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:35:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:36:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_vec.get(0).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_vec[0]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a VecDeque. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:36:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:37:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_vecdeque.get(0).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_vecdeque[0]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a HashMap. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:37:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:38:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_hashmap.get(&1).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_hashmap[&1]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a BTreeMap. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:38:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:39:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_btreemap.get(&1).unwrap();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `&some_btreemap[&1]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:41:21
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:42:21
    |
 LL |         let _: u8 = *boxed_slice.get(1).unwrap();
    |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `boxed_slice[1]`
 
 error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:46:9
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:47:9
    |
 LL |         *boxed_slice.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
    |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `boxed_slice[0]`
 
 error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a slice. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:47:9
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:48:9
    |
 LL |         *some_slice.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
    |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_slice[0]`
 
 error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:48:9
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:49:9
    |
 LL |         *some_vec.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
    |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0]`
 
 error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a VecDeque. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:49:9
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:50:9
    |
 LL |         *some_vecdeque.get_mut(0).unwrap() = 1;
    |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vecdeque[0]`
 
 error: called `.get().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:58:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:59:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_vec.get(0..1).unwrap().to_vec();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0..1]`
 
 error: called `.get_mut().unwrap()` on a Vec. Using `[]` is more clear and more concise
-  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:59:17
+  --> $DIR/get_unwrap.rs:60:17
    |
 LL |         let _ = some_vec.get_mut(0..1).unwrap().to_vec();
    |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: try this: `some_vec[0..1]`