[llogiq]

I happened upon this pattern in a codebase I was working on, and was surprised it wasn't covered already. Using any Vec::<String>::contains or VecDeque::<String>::contains will require the argument to be of type &String, so people sometimes use &_.to_string() for the value, despite the fact that _.iter().any(|x| x == _) does the same linear scan and requires no additional allocation. A small thing, but we can still lint it.

---

changelog: extend redundant_clone to cover vec.contains(&str.to_string())

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request. A reviewer will take a look after it receives 2 community reviews.

In the meantime, we would highly appreciate if you could try to review any of PRs waiting on community reviews.

[github-actions]

Lintcheck changes for dd9dd13

Lint	Added	Removed	Changed
clippy::unnecessary_to_owned	3	0	0

This comment will be updated if you push new changes

[llogiq]

Cool, found one in cargo of all things.

[CommanderStorm]

Community review: LGTM, I have some comments, feel free to ignore. none of them seem very important

View changes since this review

[llogiq]

Thanks @CommanderStorm for the review. I incorporated all suggestions and also extended the lint to also cover arrays and slices instead of just Vecs and VecDeques.

[CommanderStorm]

I incorporated all suggestions

I think you forgot to push, right? 😅

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[Gri-ffin]

I like the addition but the lint is in nursery so it would mostly be allow by default for most cases :/, isn't unnecessary_to_owned a better fit for this addition?

View changes since this review

[Gri-ffin]

Thank you.

View changes since this review

[rustbot]

r? @dswij

rustbot has assigned @dswij for the project review.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: 9 candidates
• 9 candidates expanded to 9 candidates
• Random selection from Jarcho, Manishearth, blyxyas, dswij

[llogiq]

I think there's still a problem if the collection type is inferred from the .contains(_) argument. I'll add a test and make sure it works.

[llogiq]

Ok, this should now be fixed. @dswij r?