Handle case when BlockExpr is child of IfExpr, WhileExpr, LoopExpr,
ForExpr.
An additional { } will be added when:
- It is not a BlockExpr
- It is a BlockExpr and a child of IfExpr, WhileExpr, LoopExpr, ForExpr.
fix a bunch of clippy lints
fixes a bunch of clippy lints for fun and profit
i'm aware of this repo's position on clippy. The changes are split into separate commits so they can be reviewed separately
This makes code more readale and concise,
moving all format arguments like `format!("{}", foo)`
into the more compact `format!("{foo}")` form.
The change was automatically created with, so there are far less change
of an accidental typo.
```
cargo clippy --fix -- -A clippy::all -W clippy::uninlined_format_args
```
I am not certain if this will improve performance,
but it seems having a .clone() without any need should be removed.
This was done with clippy, and manually reviewed:
```
cargo clippy --fix -- -A clippy::all -D clippy::redundant_clone
```
fix: breaking snippets on typed incomplete suggestions
Possible fix for #7929
Fix the case where if a user types `&&42.o`, snippet completion was still applying &&Ok(42). Note this was fixed previously on `&&42.` but this still remained a problem for this case
Previous relevant PR: #13517
### Points to help in review:
- The main problem why everything broke on adding an extra `o` was, earlier `dot_receiver` was `42.` which was a `LITERAL` but now `42.o` becomes a `FIELD_EXPR`
- Till now `include_references` was just checking for parent of `LITERAL` and if it was a `REF_EXPR`, but now we consider `FIELD_EXPR` and traverse all of them, finally to reach `REF_EXPR`. If `REF_EXPR` is not found we just return the original `initial_element`
- We are constructing a new node during `include_references` because if we rely on `dot_receiver` solely we would get `&&42.o` to be replaced with, but we want `&&42` to be replaced with
### Output Video:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/49019259/205420166-efbdef78-5b3a-4aef-ab4b-d892dac056a0.mov
Hope everything I wrote makes sense 😅
Also interestingly previous PR's number was `13517` and this PR's number is `13715`, nicee
Fix the case where if a user types `&&42.o`, snippet completion
was still applying &&Ok(42). Note this was fixed previously
on `&&42.` but this still remained a problem for this case
