Improved wording of or_fun_call lint

[zvavybir]

The current wording (e.g. use of `ok_or` followed by a function call) is potentially confusing (at least it confused me) by suggesting that the function that follows the (in this case) ok_or is the problem and not the function that is an argument to it.

The code in my program that triggered the confusing message is the following:

let file_id = buf
    .lines()
    .next()
    .ok_or((
        InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
        anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
    ))
    .html_context(stream, lang)?;

I thought that html_context was the problem and that I should do something along the following lines:

let file_id = buf
    .lines()
    .next()
    .ok_or_else(
        (
            InternalError::ProblemReadingFromInbox,
            anyhow!("No first line in inbox response ({file:?}): {buf:?}"),
        ),
        html_context(stream, lang),
    )?

This is of course wrong. My confusion was only cleared up through the help message indicating what I should try instead.

If someone has a better idea of a replacement wording (currently e.g. function call inside of `ok_or`), I'm all ears.

changelog: none

[rustbot]

r? @Alexendoo

rustbot has assigned @Alexendoo.
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

[Alexendoo]

Yeah that's better, thanks!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 8c46c49 has been approved by Alexendoo

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8c46c49 with merge 29a0616...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-action_test

[Alexendoo]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8c46c49 with merge b85f632...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: Alexendoo
Pushing b85f632 to master...