Metadata collection monster eating deprecated lints

[xFrednet]

This adds the collection of deprecated lints to the metadata collection monster. The JSON output has the same structure with the new lint group "DEPRECATED". Here is one of fourteen examples it was able to dig up in Clippy's code:

  {
    "id": "assign_op_pattern",
    "id_span": {
      "path": "src/assign_ops.rs",
      "line": 34
    },
    "group": "clippy::style",
    "docs": " **What it does:** Checks for `a = a op b` or `a = b commutative_op a` patterns.\n\n **Why is this bad?** These can be written as the shorter `a op= b`.\n\n **Known problems:** While forbidden by the spec, `OpAssign` traits may have\n implementations that differ from the regular `Op` impl.\n\n **Example:**\n ```rust\n let mut a = 5;\n let b = 0;\n // ...\n // Bad\n a = a + b;\n\n // Good\n a += b;\n ```\n",
    "applicability": {
      "is_multi_part_suggestion": false,
      "applicability": "MachineApplicable"
    }
  }

And you! Yes you! Sir or Madam can get all of this for free in Clippy if this PR gets merged. (Sorry for the silliness ^^)

---

See: #7172 for the full metadata collection to-do list or to suggest a new feature in connection to it 🙃

---

changelog: none

r? @flip1995

[ghost]

It's 'deprecated'; not 'depreciated'. We're talking APIs not financial statements.

[xFrednet]

Ups, I'll update the PR later today. Thank you 😅

[xFrednet]

I've fixed the wrong vocab usage in the main commit itself. I don't think it was worth it to add a new one 🙃

[xFrednet]

It seems like I'll need to update clippy_dev as well. But that's a TODO for tomorrow 🙃

[flip1995]

Hm, now that I see the effect of this, I think having a more detailed documentation in addition to the reason displayed in the error message is a better approach. Otherwise we would dump a multi line error message if someone uses a deprecated lint.

Before you start working on clippy_dev, just revert this to the version you had before my silly idea and lets revisit this later. Sorry about that!

[xFrednet]

Yes, I had the same gut feeling during the implementation. Documenting deprecated lints in their own module makes them more approachable to newcomers as well due to the reduced scope, IMO. Anyways, This implementation will be kept in a backup branch in case we need it at a later point in time. I'll remove the commits from this branch.

Was there anything else I should update in the original implementation?

[flip1995]

Was there anything else I should update in the original implementation?

Nope, the original implementation looked good.

[xFrednet]

Okay, I've removed the commits to collect the deprecation reasoning from store.register_removed. A backup is in a second branch with a link to it in the tracking issue. So, that should be it IMO.

[flip1995]

@bors r+

Thanks! (And sorry for the back and forth)

[bors]

📌 Commit a988a90 has been approved by flip1995

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a988a90 with merge aa15a54...

[xFrednet]

No worries 🙃, and thanks for the quick review cycle. I'll create the configuration collection PR later today and that should be it when it comes to the new collection itself. The next step it then to adapt the CI and website. I'm also looking forward to work into a new topic after that xD

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: flip1995
Pushing aa15a54 to master...