Also check USELESS_ELVIS in UnreachableCode

[atulgpt]

Fixes #6623

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (174cf03) 85.13% compared to head (a3ab768) 85.13%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #6624   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     85.13%   85.13%           
- Complexity     4079     4081    +2     
=========================================
  Files           570      570           
  Lines         13363    13364    +1     
  Branches       2402     2402           
=========================================
+ Hits          11376    11377    +1     
  Misses          791      791           
  Partials       1196     1196           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[3flex]

I understand why this is added to the existing unreachable code rule but I believe this should be implemented as a separate rule since it's a wrapper of an existing compiler warning. I don't think wrapped compiler warnings should be consolidated in the same rule.

And very technically speaking the Elvis operator itself is not unreachable - it will always be hit.

[BraisGabin]

I understand why this is added to the existing unreachable code rule but I believe this should be implemented as a separate rule since it's a wrapper of an existing compiler warning. I don't think wrapped compiler warnings should be consolidated in the same rule.

I'm not sure about this. It's true, it's easy to think "two different rules" looking at the implementation. But, as a user, both are unreachable code so I think that it is ok to merge them. A new rule will help to make this more configurable but I think that we don't need such configuration.