feat: allow customizing the command for running build scripts
I have tested this locally and it fixed#9201 with some small changes on the compiler side with suggestions from https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/9201#issuecomment-1019554086.
I have also added an environment variable `IS_RA_BUILDSCRIPT_CHECK` for crates to detect that it is a check for buildscripts, and allows defaulting to bogus values for expected environment variables.
When using `F1`->`Rust Analyzer: Run` action on an `example`, pass its
`required-features` to `cargo run`. This allows to run examples that
were otherwise impossible to run with RA.
10387: Move `IdxRange` into la-arena r=Veykril a=arzg
Currently, `IdxRange` (named `IdRange`) is located in `hir_def::item_tree`, when really it isn’t specific to `hir_def` and could become part of la-arena. The rename from `IdRange` to `IdxRange` is to maintain consistency with the naming convention used throughout la-arena (`Idx` instead of `Id`, `RawIdx` instead of `RawId`). This PR also adds a few new APIs to la-arena on top of `IdxRange` for convenience, namely:
- indexing into an `Arena` by an `IdxRange` and getting a slice of values back
- creating an `IdxRange` from an inclusive range
Currently this PR also exposes a new `Arena::next_idx` method to make constructing inclusive`IdxRange`s using `IdxRange::new` easier; however, it would in my opinion be better to remove this as it allows for easy creation of out-of-bounds `Idx`s, when `IdxRange::new_inclusive` mostly covers the same use-case while being less error-prone.
I decided to bump the la-arena version to 0.3.0 from 0.2.0 because adding a new `Index` impl for `Arena` turned out to be a breaking change: I had to add a type hint in `crates/hir_def/src/body/scope.rs` when one wasn’t necessary before, since rustc couldn’t work out the type of a closure parameter now that there are multiple `Index` impls. I’m not sure whether this is the right decision, though.
Co-authored-by: Aramis Razzaghipour <aramisnoah@gmail.com>
Previously the detected cargo is the global one, as it uses the
directory of the rust source which doesn't pick up the local override
This fixes the case in clippy where the local rust toolchain is a recent
nightly that has a 2021 edition Cargo.toml. The global (stable) cargo
returns an error attempting to parse it
Fixes#10445
10503: Only include targets of packages that are workspace members r=Veykril a=bcully
CargoWorkspace's package list includes packages that are path
dependencies, even if those packages aren't actually members of the
cargo workspace. As a result, rust-analyzer's runnable finder, which
returns the target from the first workspace that has a matching package,
may select the wrong working directory, causing runnables to fail, e.g.,
```
error: package `root` cannot be tested because it requires dev-dependencies and is not a member of the workspace
```
To fix this, we filter out packages that aren't members of the workspace
when searching for targets.
Fixes#7764
Co-authored-by: Brendan Cully <brendan@cully.org>
CargoWorkspace's package list includes packages that are path
dependencies, even if those packages aren't actually members of the
cargo workspace. As a result, rust-analyzer's runnable finder, which
returns the target from the first workspace that has a matching package,
may select the wrong working directory, causing runnables to fail, e.g.,
```
error: package `root` cannot be tested because it requires dev-dependencies and is not a member of the workspace
```
To fix this, we filter out packages that aren't members of the workspace
when searching for targets.
Fixes#7764
10005: Extend `CargoConfig.unset_test_crates` r=matklad a=regexident
This is to allow for efficiently disabling `#[cfg(test)]` on all crates (by passing `unset_test_crates: UnsetTestCrates::All`) without having to first load the crate graph, when using rust-analyzer as a library.
(FYI: The change doesn't seem to be covered by any existing tests.)
Co-authored-by: Vincent Esche <regexident@gmail.com>
I don't think there's anything wrong with project_model depending on
proc_macro_api directly -- fundamentally, both are about gluing our pure
data model to the messy outside world.
However, it's easy enough to avoid the dependency, so why not.
As an additional consideration, `proc_macro_api` now pulls in `base_db`.
project_model should definitely not depend on that!
