4083: Smol documentation for ast nodes r=matklad a=Veetaha
There is a tremendous amount of TODOs to clarify the topics I am not certain about.
Please @matklad, @edwin0cheng review carefully, I even left some mentions of your names in todos to put your attention where you most probably can give comments.
In order to simplify the review, I separated the codegen (i.e. changes in `ast/generated/nodes.rs`) from `ast_src` changes (they in fact just duplicate one another) into two commits.
Also, I had to hack a little bit to let the docs be generated as doc comments and not as doc attributes because it's easier to read them this way and IIRC we don't support hints for `#[doc = ""]` attributes for now...
Closes#3682
Co-authored-by: veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
This reverts commit 7a49165f5d.
MacroStmts ast node is not used by itself, but it pertains
to SyntaxNodeKind MACRO_STMTS that is used by ra_paser, so
even tho the node itself is not used, it is better to keep it
with a FIXME to actually add a doc comment when it becomes useful.
4207: Add unwrap block assist #4156 r=matklad a=bnjjj
close issue #4156
4253: Remove `workspaceLoaded` setting r=matklad a=eminence
The `workspaceLoaded` notification setting was originally designed to
control the display of a popup message that said:
"workspace loaded, {} rust packages"
This popup was removed and replaced by a much sleeker message in the
VSCode status bar that provides a real-time status while loading:
rust-analyzer: {}/{} packages
This was done as part of #3587
The change in this PR simply renames this setting from `workspaceLoaded` to
`progress` to better describe what it actually controls. At the moment,
the only type of progress message that is controlled by this setting is
the initial load messages, but in theory other messages could also be
controlled by this setting.
Reviewer notes:
* If we didn't like the idea of causing minor breaking to user's config, we could keep the setting name as `workspaceLoaded`
* I think we can now close both #2719 and #3176 since the notification dialog in question no longer exists (actually I think you can close those issues even if you reject this PR 😄 )
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <5719034+bnjjj@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Chin <achin@eminence32.net>
4246: Validate uses of self and super r=matklad a=djrenren
This change follows on the validation of the `crate` keyword in paths. It verifies the following things:
`super`:
- May only be preceded by other `super` segments
- If in a `UseItem` then all semantically preceding paths also consist only of `super`
`self`
- May only be the start of a path
Just a note, a couple times while working on this I found myself really wanting a Visitor of some sort so that I could traverse descendants while skipping sub-trees that are unimportant. Iterators don't really work for this, so as you can see I reached for recursion. Considering paths are generally small a fancy debounced visitor probably isn't important but figured I'd say something in case we had something like this lying around and I wasn't using it.
Co-authored-by: John Renner <john@jrenner.net>
4227: Report invalid, nested, multi-segment crate-paths r=matklad a=djrenren
There was a bug in the previous path-validating code that didn't detect multi-segment paths that started with `crate`.
```rust
// Successfully reported
use foo::{crate};
// BUG: was not being reported
use foo::{crate::bar};
```
This was due to my confusion about path-associativity. That is, the path with no qualifier is the innermost path, not the outermost. I've updated the code with a lot of comments to explain what's going on.
This bug was discovered when I found an erroneous `ok` test which I reported here:
https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/4226
This test now fails and has been modified, hopefully in the spirit of the original test, to be correct. Sorry about submitting the bug in the first place!
Co-authored-by: John Renner <john@jrenner.net>
4178: Validate the location of `crate` in paths r=matklad a=djrenren
**This solution does not fully handle `use` statements. See below**
This pull requests implements simple validation of usages of the `crate` keyword in `Path`s. Specifically it validates that:
- If a `PathSegment` is starts with the `crate` keyword, it is also the first segment of the `Path`
- All other usages of `crate` in `Path`s are considered errors.
This aligns with `rustc`'s rules. Unlike rustc this implementation does not issue a special error message in the case of `::crate` but it does catch the error.
Furthermore, this change does not cover all error cases. Specifically the following is not caught:
```rust
use foo::{crate}
```
This is because this check is context sensitive. From an AST perspective, `crate` is the root of the `Path`. Only by inspecting the full `UseItem` do we see that it is not in fact the root. This problem becomes worse because `UseTree`s are allowed to be arbitrarily nested:
```rust
use {crate, {{crate, foo::{crate}}}
```
So this is a hard problem to solve without essentially a breadth-first search. In a traditional compiler, I'd say this error is most easily found during the AST -> HIR conversion pass but within rust-analyzer I'm not sure where it belongs.
Under the implementation in this PR, such errors are ignored so we're *more correct* just not *entirely correct*.
Co-authored-by: John Renner <john@jrenner.net>
4134: Special case for empty comments in doc comment kind r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Part of #4103
Fix `ui/empty/empty-comment.rs macros`
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
3998: Make add_function generate functions in other modules via qualified path r=matklad a=TimoFreiberg
Additional feature for #3639
- [x] Add tests for paths with more segments
- [x] Make generating the function in another file work
- [x] Add `pub` or `pub(crate)` to the generated function if it's generated in a different module
- [x] Make the assist jump to the edited file
- [x] Enable file support in the `check_assist` helper
4006: Syntax highlighting for format strings r=matklad a=ltentrup
I have an implementation for syntax highlighting for format string modifiers `{}`.
The first commit refactors the changes in #3826 into a separate struct.
The second commit implements the highlighting: first we check in a macro call whether the macro is a format macro from `std`. In this case, we remember the format string node. If we encounter this node during syntax highlighting, we check for the format modifiers `{}` using regular expressions.
There are a few places which I am not quite sure:
- Is the way I extract the macro names correct?
- Is the `HighlightTag::Attribute` suitable for highlighting the `{}`?
Let me know what you think, any feedback is welcome!
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <ltentrup@users.noreply.github.com>
4038: Group generated ast boilerplate apart from the interesting part r=matklad a=Veetaha
Boilerplate `AstNode` and `From` impls are moved to the end further from the interesting part in `generated.rs`
Co-authored-by: veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
The fix is admittedly quit literally just papering over.
Long-term, I see two more principled approaches:
* we switch to a fully tree-based impl, without parse . to_string
step; with this approach, there shouldn't be any panics. The results
might be nonsensical, but so was the original input.
* we preserve the invariant that re-parsing constructed node is an
identity, and make all the `make_xxx` method return an `Option`.
closes#4044
Detailed changes:
1) Implement a lexer for string literals that divides the string in format specifier `{}` including the format specifier modifier.
2) Adapt syntax highlighting to add ranges for the detected sequences.
3) Add a test case for the format string syntax highlighting.
todo!() "Indicates unfinished code" (https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.todo.html)
Rust documentation provides further clarification:
> The difference between unimplemented! and todo! is that while todo!
> conveys an intent of implementing the functionality later and the
> message is "not yet implemented", unimplemented! makes no such claims.
todo!() seems more appropriate for assists that insert missing impls.
