Add unwrap_or_else_default lint

[lf-]

---

Please write a short comment explaining your change (or "none" for internal only changes)

changelog: Add a new [unwrap_or_else_default] style lint. This will catch unwrap_or_else(Default::default) on Result and Option and suggest unwrap_or_default() instead.

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @llogiq (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[xFrednet]

Hey, thank you very much for your work! These are some suggestions of further improvements. The rest of the implementation looks good IMO, and you also already added the lint in the right place 👍

[xFrednet]

Thank you for the PR update. I've marked a few things which could be improved, the rest of the code already looks good IMO. 🙃

[lf-]

Changes done :)

[xFrednet]

Awesome, thank you! There are three more small things, and then I think it's ready to be merged.

1. The NIT marked below
2. Could you squash the development commits in the middle of your PR together?
3. And also move the change log entry in the PR description on the same line as the changelog: label? (That will save work later on for the one writing it)

That should do it, IMO 🙃.

[xFrednet]

Awesome, thank you very much for the contribution! 🙃

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 295df88 has been approved by xFrednet

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 295df88 with merge e62a6ca...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: xFrednet
Pushing e62a6ca to master...

[flip1995]

tree-wide: Fix all the rustdoc warnings

Thanks for this clean-up! Things like this should go in their own PR though. One PR should be about one thing only. Hiding such things in unrelated PRs could be confusing when you have to find out what changes were done where.

That being said: How did you find these? We may want to add checks for this to CI.

[lf-]

tree-wide: Fix all the rustdoc warnings

Thanks for this clean-up! Things like this should go in their own PR though. One PR should be about one thing only. Hiding such things in unrelated PRs could be confusing when you have to find out what changes were done where.

That being said: How did you find these? We may want to add checks for this to CI.

I will keep this in mind in the future. I found these partially because I like cookies and run rust nightly, and there have been some lints added to rustdoc in the current nightly rust version, and partially because I was reading the docs in question.