Ensure the lint files are part of the binary file itself.

[obi1kenobi]

As part of the add_lints!() macro, we had accidentally made the lints no longer be part of the cargo-semver-checks binary itself. This means that everything worked fine as long as it was run from the cargo-semver-checks repo itself, and failed spectacularly as soon as that was not the case (e.g. after cargo install cargo-semver-checks).

This PR re-adds the lints into the binary using include_str!().

[tonowak]

What :O

[tonowak]

I see. Have you already thought about possible tests that could catch this?

[obi1kenobi]

What :O

I know, right? At compile-time, include_str!() has a stable . directory, so in my code review I completely missed that we had switched to a runtime-evaluated std::fs::read_to_string() with a relative path, which could point anywhere since the program itself doesn't attempt to set it to anything. And since we also don't bundle the lint files as part of the build, this was never going to work.

I found it this by accident while testing something else with the locally-built binary for the newest version, so we got lucky. Otherwise, I think this would have made it through our entire release process and would have broken our users.

It's probably a good idea to add a CI check that does cargo build, then does a cd into the release directory and runs the built binary directly on some rustdoc JSON files (e.g. from the test suite). If we put it after the cargo test step then it probably will have minimal cost, since cargo test will already have done almost the entire build.

[obi1kenobi]

Would you be interested in adding that CI check, or should I go for it?

[tonowak]

Is that a new clippy lint? Should I update my clippy?

[obi1kenobi]

I don't think it's new, it's been there since 1.51 per this page: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#vec_init_then_push

The old code didn't trigger that lint for me, though. Not sure why only the new code gets it.

[tonowak]

Would you be interested in adding that CI check, or should I go for it?

I can try doing that this week. Will you create an appropriate issue?