test: include `rename_path_inside_use_tree`.
Keeps tracks the progress of the changes. 3 other tests broke with the changes
of this.
feat: rename all other usages within the current file.
feat: fix most of the implementation problems.
test: `rename_path_inside_use_tree` tests a more complicated scenario.
Commit 6a06f6f72 (Deduplicate reference search results, 2022-11-07) deduplicates references
within each definition.
There is an edge case when requesting references of a macro argument. Apparently, our
descend_into_macros() stanza in references.rs produces a cartesian product of
- references inside the macro times
- times references outside the macro.
Since the above deduplication only applies to the references within a single definition, we
return them all, leading to many redundant references.
Work around this by deduplicating definitions as well. Perhaps there is a better fix to not
produce this cartesian product in the first place; but I think at least for definitions the
problem would remain; a macro can contain multiple definitions of the same name, but since the
navigation target will be the unresolved location, it's the same for all of them.
We can't use unique() because we don't want to drop references that don't have a declaration
(though I dont' have an example for this case).
I discovered this working with the "bitflags" macro from the crate of the same name.
Fixes#16357
This mostly works well, and eliminates a couple of delayed bugs.
One annoying thing is that we should really also add an
`ErrorGuaranteed` to `proc_macro::bridge::LitKind::Err`. But that's
difficult because `proc_macro` doesn't have access to `ErrorGuaranteed`,
so we have to fake it.
Add completions to show only traits in trait `impl` statement
This is prerequisite PR for adding the assist mentioned in #12500
P.S: If wanted, I will add the implementation of the assist in this PR as well.
Implement `literal_from_str` for proc macro server
Closes#16233
Todos and unanswered questions:
- [x] Is this the correct approach? Can both the legacy and `rust_analyzer_span` servers depend on the `syntax` crate?
- [ ] How should we handle suffixes for string literals? It doesn't seem like `rust-analyzer` preservers suffix information after parsing.
- [x] Why are the `expect` tests failing? Specifically `test_fn_like_macro_clone_literals`
Substitute $saved_file in custom check commands
If the custom command has a $saved_file placeholder, and we know the file being saved, replace the placeholder and run a check command.
If there's a placeholder and we don't know the saved file, do nothing.
This is a simplified version of #15381, which I hope is easier to review.
feat: Introduce term search to rust-analyzer
# Introduce term search to `rust-analyzer`
_I've marked this as draft as there might be some shortcomings, please point them out so I can fix them. Otherwise I think it is kind of ready as I think I'll rather introduce extra functionality in follow up PRs._
Term search (or I guess expression search for rust) is a technique to generate code by basically making the types match.
Consider the following program
```rust
fn wrap(arg: i32) -> Option<i32> {
todo!();
}
```
From the types of values in scope and constructors of `Option`, we can produce the expected result of wrapping the argument in `Option`
Dependently typed languages such as `Idris2` and `Agda` have similar tools to help with proofs, but this can be also used in everyday development as a "auto-complete".
# Demo videos
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/assets/19900308/7b68a1b7-7dba-4e31-9221-6c7485e77d88https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/assets/19900308/0fae530a-aabb-4b28-af71-e19f8d3d64b2
# What does it currently do
- It works well with locals, free functions, type constructors and non-static impl methods that take items by value.
- Works with functions/methods that take shared references, but not with unique references (very conservative).
- Can handle projections to struct fields (eg. `foo.bar.baz`) but this might me more conservative than it has to be to avoid conflicting with borrow checker
- Should create only valid programs (no type / borrow checking errors). Tested with `rust-analyzer analysis-stats /path/to/ripgrep/Cargo.toml --run-term-search --validate-term-search` (basically running `cargo check` on all of the generated programs and only error seems to be due to type inference which is more of issue of testing method.
# Performace / fitness
```txt
ripgrep (latest)
Tail Expr syntactic hits: 130/1692 (7%)
Tail Exprs found: 523/1692 (30%)
Term search avg time: 9ms
Term search: 15.64s, 97ginstr, 8mb
rust-analyzer (on this branch)
Tail Expr syntactic hits: 804/13860 (5%)
Tail Exprs found: 6757/13860 (48%)
Term search avg time: 78ms
Term search: 1088.23s, 6765ginstr, 98mb
```
Highly generic code seems to blow up the search space so currently the amount of generics allowed is functions/methods is limited down to 0 (1 didn't give much improvement and 2 is already like 0.5+s search time)
# Plans for the future (not in this PR)
- ``~~Add impl methods that do not take `self` type (should be quite straight forward)~~ Done
- Be smarter (aka less restrictive) about borrow checking - this seems quite hard but since the current approach is rather naive I think some easy improvement is available.
- ``~~See if it works as a autocomplete while typing~~ Done
_Feel free to ask questions / point of shortcoming either here or on Zulip, I'll be happy to address them. I'm doing this as part of my MSc thesis so I'll be working on it till summer anyway 😄_
If the custom command has a $saved_file placeholder, and we know the
file being saved, replace the placeholder and then run a check command.
If there's a placeholder and we don't know the saved file, do nothing.
feat: ignored and disabled macro expansion
Supersedes #15117, I was having some conflicts after a rebase and since I didn't remember much of it I started clean instead.
The end result is pretty much the same as the linked PR, but instead of proc macro lookups, I marked the expanders that explicitly cannot be expanded and we shouldn't even attempt to do so.
## Unresolved questions
- [ ] I introduced a `DISABLED_ID` next to `DUMMY_ID` in `hir-expand`'s `ProcMacroExpander`, that is effectively exactly the same thing with slightly different semantics, dummy macros are not (yet) expanded probably due to errors, while not expanding disabled macros is part of the usual flow. I'm not sure if it's the right way to handle this, I also thought of just adding a flag instead of replacing the macro ID, so that the disabled macro can still be expanded for any reason if needed.
