6033: Make name resolution resolve proc macros instead of relying purely on the build system r=matklad a=jonas-schievink
This makes name resolution look at proc-macro declaration attributes like `#[proc_macro_derive]` and defines the right proc macro in the macro namespace, fixing unresolved custom derives like `thiserror::Error` (which can cause false positives, now that we emit diagnostics for unresolved imports).
This works even when proc-macro support is turned off, in which case we fall back to a dummy expander that always returns an error. IMO this is the right way to handle at least the name resolution part of proc. macros, while the *expansion* itself should rely on the build system to build and provide the macro DLL. It does mean that they may go out of sync, but we can provide diagnostics if that happens (something like "could not find macro X in crate Y – ensure that all files of crate Y are saved").
I think it is valuable to be able to reason about proc macros even when we can't expand them, since proc macro expansion can break between Rust releases or users might not want to turn it on for performance reasons. It allows us to provide better diagnostics on any proc macro invocation we're not expanding (like a weak warning that informs the user that proc macro support is turned off, or that it has been disabled because the server crashed).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5763
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonas.schievink@ferrous-systems.com>
6085: Mark unresolved imports diagnostic as experimental r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
It causes a lot of false positives for people. We collected all of the known ones during the last week.
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonas.schievink@ferrous-systems.com>
6016: Emit diagnostics for unresolved imports and extern crates r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
AFAIK, we don't have any major bugs in name resolution that would cause a lot of false positives here (except procedural attribute macro support and some rare issues around `#[path]` on module files), so these are *not* marked as experimental diagnostics right now.
I noticed that diagnostics in a file sometimes don't get displayed after opening, but require some edit to be performed. This seems like a preexisting issue though.
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonas.schievink@ferrous-systems.com>
5971: Implement async blocks r=flodiebold a=oxalica
Fix#4018
@flodiebold already gave a generic guide in the issue. Here's some concern about implementation detail:
- Chalk doesn't support generator type yet.
- Adding generator type as a brand new type (ctor) can be complex and need to *re-introduced* builtin impls. (Like how we implement closures before native closure support of chalk, which is already removed in #5401 )
- The output type of async block should be known after type inference of the whole body.
- We cannot directly get the type from source like return-positon-impl-trait. But we still need to provide trait bounds when chalk asking for `opaque_ty_data`.
- During the inference, the output type of async block can be temporary unknown and participate the later inference.
`let a = async { None }; let _: i32 = a.await.unwrap();`
So in this PR, the type of async blocks is inferred as an opaque type parameterized by the `Future::Output` type it should be, like what we do with closure type.
And it really works now.
Well, I still have some questions:
- The bounds `AsyncBlockImplType<T>: Future<Output = T>` is currently generated in `opaque_ty_data`. I'm not sure if we should put this code here.
- Type of async block is now rendered as `impl Future<Output = OutputType>`. Do we need to special display to hint that it's a async block? Note that closure type has its special format, instead of `impl Fn(..) -> ..` or function type.
Co-authored-by: oxalica <oxalicc@pm.me>
5682: Add an option to disable diagnostics r=matklad a=popzxc
As far as I know, currently it's not possible to disable a selected type of diagnostics provided by `rust-analyzer`.
This causes an inconvenient situation with a false-positive warnings: you either have to disable all the diagnostics, or you have to ignore these warnings.
There are some open issues related to this problem, e.g.: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5412, https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5502
This PR attempts to make it possible to selectively disable some diagnostics on per-project basis.
Co-authored-by: Igor Aleksanov <popzxc@yandex.ru>
