9423: fix: Resolve attribute paths in attribute highlighting r=Veykril a=Veykril
Attributes have a new highlighting format now, whereas the `#[` `]` tokens are now tagged with `attribute.attribute` like before, but all other idents inside token trees are now `generic.attribute`. If a path in an attribute can't be resolved it will instead get the `builtinAttribute.attribute` tags now as highlighting doesn't know about builtins like `allow` yet, so we don't want to emit unresolved references.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
9418: internal: Include `self` in usage search for modules in their definition source r=Veykril a=Veykril
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
Macro that deep clone the tokens but otherwise preserves source
locations and hygiene info is an interesting case for IDE support. Lets
have this, although we don't actively use it at the moment.
9380: feat: Implement goto_declaration support r=matklad a=Veykril
This is just a simple implementation that falls back to `goto_definition` for everything but modules where it goes to the actual module declaration if possible.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
9353: Include extra targets when the pkg_root is not the same as the target root. r=matklad a=rezural
Fixes#7715
For example, if a sub-crate includes sets the path='../somewhere-else/lib.rs', the files will not be in pkg_root , but in the target root's parent.
It may actually be in root.parent().parent(), I'm not sure about that.
At the moment it is just a fix, are there any relevant tests that this could go in? I've got about 1 brain cell left... but im happy to add tests where appropriate.
Co-authored-by: rezural <rezural@protonmail.com>
Definition::visibility was implemented in a rather roundabout way -- by
asking the parent module about the effective visibility.
This is problematic for a couple of reasons:
* first, it doesn't work for local items
* second, asking module about visibility of a child is a linear
operation (that's a problem in itself, tracked in #9378)
Instead, lets ask the declared visibility directly, we have all the code
for it, and need only to actually us it.
