3920: Implement expand_task and list_macros in proc_macro_srv r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR finish up the remain `proc_macro_srv` implementation :
1. Added dylib loading code for proc-macro crate dylib. Note that we have to add some special flags for unix loading because of a bug in old version of glibc, see https://github.com/fedochet/rust-proc-macro-panic-inside-panic-expample/issues/1 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60593 for details.
2. Added tests for proc-macro expansion: We use a trick here by adding `serde_derive` to dev-dependencies and calling `cargo-metadata` for searching its dylib path, and expand it in our tests.
[EDIT]
Note that this PR **DO NOT** implement the final glue code with rust-analzyer and proc-macro-srv yet.
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
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.
3905: add ellipsis field to hir pat record r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
This PR corrects a `fixme`, adding an `ellipsis` field to the hir `Pat::Record` type. It will also be unlock some useful follow on work for #3894.
Additionally it adds a diagnostic for missing fields in record patterns.
~~Marking as a draft because I don't have any tests, and a small amount of manual testing on my branch from #3894 suggests it might *not* be working. Any thoughts on how I can best test this, or else pointers on where I might be going wrong?~~
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
Chalk now panics if we don't implement these methods and run with CHALK_DEBUG,
so I thought I'd try to implement them 'properly'. Sadly, it seems impossible to
do without transmuting lifetimes somewhere. The problem is that we need a `&dyn
HirDatabase` to get names etc., which we can't just put into TLS. I thought I
could just use `scoped-tls`, but that doesn't support references to unsized
types. So I put the `&dyn` into another struct and put the reference to *that*
into the TLS, but I have to transmute the lifetime to 'static for that to work.
3918: Add support for feature attributes in struct literal r=matklad a=bnjjj
As promised here is the next PR to solve 2 different scenarios with feature flag on struct literal.
close#3870
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <5719034+bnjjj@users.noreply.github.com>
3901: Add more heuristics for hiding obvious param hints r=matklad a=IceSentry
This will now hide `value`, `pat`, `rhs` and `other`. These words were selected from the std because they are used in commonly used functions with only a single param and are obvious by their use.
It will also hide the hint if the passed param **starts** or end with the param_name. Maybe we could also split on '_' and check if one of the string is the param_name.
I think it would be good to also hide `bytes` if the type is `[u8; n]` but I'm not sure how to get the param type signature.
Closes#3900
Co-authored-by: IceSentry <c.giguere42@gmail.com>
3880: Add support for attributes for struct fields r=matklad a=bnjjj
Hello I try to solve this example:
```rust
struct MyStruct {
my_val: usize,
#[cfg(feature = "foo")]
bar: bool,
}
impl MyStruct {
#[cfg(feature = "foo")]
pub(crate) fn new(my_val: usize, bar: bool) -> Self {
Self { my_val, bar }
}
#[cfg(not(feature = "foo"))]
pub(crate) fn new(my_val: usize, _bar: bool) -> Self {
Self { my_val }
}
}
```
Here is a draft PR to try to solve this issue. In fact for now when i have this kind of example, rust-analyzer tells me that my second Self {} miss the bar field. Which is a bug.
I have some difficulties to add this features. Here in my draft I share my work about adding attributes support on struct field data. But I'm stuck when I have to fetch attributes from parent expressions. I don't really know how to do that. For the first iteration I just want to solve my issue without solving on all different expressions. And then after I will try to implement that on different kind of expression. I think I have to fetch my FunctionId and then I will be able to find attributes with myFunction.attrs() But I don't know if it's the right way.
@matklad (or anyone else) if you can help me it would be great :D
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <5719034+bnjjj@users.noreply.github.com>
This will now hide "value", "pat", "rhs" and "other"
These words were selected from the std because they are used in common functions with only a single param and are obvious by their use.
I think it would be good to also hide "bytes" if the type is `[u8; n]` but I'm not sure how to get the param type signature
It will also hide the hint if the passed param starts or end with the param_name
- Adds a new AstElement trait that is implemented by all generated
node, token and enum structs
- Overhauls the code generators to code-generate all tokens, and
also enhances enums to support including tokens, node, and nested
enums
3826: Flatten nested highlight ranges during DFS traversal r=matklad a=ltentrup
Implements the flattening of nested highlights from #3447.
There is a caveat: I needed to add `Clone` to `HighlightedRange` to split highlight ranges ~and the nesting does not appear in the syntax highlighting test (it does appear in the accidental-quadratic test but there it is not checked against a ground-truth)~.
I have added a test case for the example mentioned in #3447.
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
3892: Add L_DOLLAR for TYPE_RECOVERY_SET r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR is a hot fix for issue #3861 that just prevent it make the parser being stuck.
The actual problem described in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3873#issuecomment-610208693 is a very deep rabbit hole I don't want to dig right now :(
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
The sytax tree output files now use .rast extension
(rust-analyzer syntax tree or rust abstract syntax tree
(whatever)).
This format has a editors/code/ra_syntax_tree.tmGrammar.json declaration
that supplies nice syntax highlighting for .rast files.
3843: Remove rustc_lexer dependency in favour of rustc-ap-rustc_lexer r=est31 a=est31
The latter is auto-published on a regular schedule (Right now weekly).
See also https://github.com/alexcrichton/rustc-auto-publish
Co-authored-by: est31 <MTest31@outlook.com>
3829: Adds to SSR match for semantically equivalent call and method call r=matklad a=mikhail-m1
#3186
maybe I've missed some corner cases, but it works in general
Co-authored-by: Mikhail Modin <mikhailm1@gmail.com>
In textmate, keyword.control is used for all kinds of things; in fact,
the default scope mapping for keyword is keyword.control!
So let's add a less ambiguous controlFlow modifier
See Microsoft/vscode#94367
The big change here is counting binders, not
variables (https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk/pull/360). We have to adapt to the
same scheme for our `Ty::Bound`. It's mostly fine though, even makes some things
more clear.
We treat macro calls as expressions (there's appropriate Into impl),
which causes problem if there's expresison and non-expression macro in
the same node (like in the match arm).
We fix this problem by nesting macor patterns into another node (the
same way we nest path into PathExpr or PathPat). Ideally, we probably
should add a similar nesting for macro expressions, but that needs
some careful thinking about macros in blocks: `{ am_i_expression!() }`.
3746: Add create_function assist r=flodiebold a=TimoFreiberg
The function part of #3639, creating methods will come later
- [X] Function arguments
- [X] Function call arguments
- [x] Method call arguments
- [x] Literal arguments
- [x] Variable reference arguments
- [X] Migrate to `ast::make` API
Done, but there are some ugly spots.
Issues to handle in another PR:
- function reference arguments: Their type isn't printed properly right now.
The "insert explicit type" assist has the same issue and this is probably a relatively rare usecase.
- generating proper names for all kinds of argument expressions (if, loop, ...?)
Without this, it's totally possible for the assist to generate invalid argument names.
I think the assist it's already helpful enough to be shipped as it is, at least for me the main usecase involves passing in named references.
Besides, the Rust tooling ecosystem is immature enough that some janky behaviour in a new assist probably won't scare anyone off.
- select the generated placeholder body so it's a bit easier to overwrite it
- create method (`self.foo<|>(..)` or `some_foo.foo<|>(..)`) instead of create_function.
The main difference would be finding (or creating) the impl block and inserting the `self` argument correctly
- more specific default arg names for literals.
So far, every generated argument whose name can't be taken from the call site is called `arg` (with a number suffix if necessary).
- creating functions in another module of the same crate.
E.g. when typing `some_mod::foo<|>(...)` when in `lib.rs`, I'd want to have `foo` generated in `some_mod.rs` and jump there.
Issues: the mod could exist in `some_mod.rs`, in `lib.rs` as `mod some_mod`, or inside another mod but be imported via `use other_mod::some_mod`.
- refer to arguments of the generated function with a qualified path if the types aren't imported yet
(alternative: run autoimport. i think starting with a qualified path is cleaner and there's already an assist to replace a qualified path with an import and an unqualified path)
- add type arguments of the arguments to the generated function
- Autocomplete functions with information from unresolved calls (see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605281323)
Issues: see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605282542. The unresolved call could be anywhere. But just offering this autocompletion for unresolved calls in the same module would already be cool.
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
3814: Add impl From for enum variant assist r=flodiebold a=mattyhall
Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. It was recommended to me on the zulip to maybe try using the trait solver, but I had trouble with that as, although it could resolve the trait impl, it couldn't resolve the variable unambiguously in real use. I'm also unsure of how it would work if there were already multiple From impls to resolve - I can't see a way we could get more than one solution to my query.
Fixes#3766
Co-authored-by: Matthew Hall <matthew@quickbeam.me.uk>
