8014: increase completion relevance for items in local scope r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
This PR provides a small completion relevance score bonus for items in local scope. The changes here are relatively minimal, since `coc` by default pre-sorts by position in file. But as we move toward fully server side sorting #7935 I think we'll want some relevance score bump for items in local scope.
### Before
Note `let~` and `syntax` are both ahead of locals. Ultimately we may decide that `let~` is a high relevance completion given my cursor position here, but that should be done with some explicit scoring on the server side, rather than being caused by (I think) `coc` preferring shorter completions.
### After
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
8011: Add no-sysroot flag for analysis-stats r=edwin0cheng a=edwin0cheng
Add `no-sysroot` flag for `rust-analyzer analysis-stats`. It is very useful for debugging propose.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
7984: Improve version display r=matklad a=lnicola
Maybe closes#7854
The version string for unreleased builds looks like this now:
```
$ rust-analyzer --version
rust-analyzer 2021-03-08-159-gc0459c535
```
Release builds should only have the tag name (`2021-03-15`).
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
7994: Speed up mbe matching in heavy recursive cases r=edwin0cheng a=edwin0cheng
In some cases (e.g. #4186), mbe matching is very slow due to a lot of copy and allocation for bindings, this PR try to solve this problem by introduce a semi "link-list" approach for bindings building.
I used this [test case](https://github.com/weiznich/minimal_example_for_rust_81262) (for `features(32-column-tables)`) to run following command to benchmark:
```
time rust-analyzer analysis-stats --load-output-dirs ./
```
Before this PR : 2 mins
After this PR: 3 seconds.
However, for 64-column-tables cases, we still need 4 mins to complete.
I will try to investigate in the following weeks.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
7904: Improved completion sorting r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
I was working on extending #3954 to apply completion scores in more places (I'll have another PR open for that soon) when I discovered that actually completion sorting was not working for me at all in `coc.nvim`. This led me down a bit of a rabbit hole of how coc and vs code each sort completion items.
Before this PR, rust-analyzer was setting the `sortText` field on completion items to `None` if we hadn't applied any completion score for that item, or to the label of the item with a leading whitespace character if we had applied any completion score. Completion score is defined in rust-analyzer as an enum with two variants, `TypeMatch` and `TypeAndNameMatch`.
In vs code the above strategy works, because if `sortText` isn't set [they default it to the label](b4ead4ed66). However, coc [does not do this](e211e36147/src/completion/complete.ts (L245)).
I was going to file a bug report against coc, but I read the [LSP spec for the `sortText` field](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-current/#textDocument_completion) and I feel like it is ambiguous and coc could claim what they do is a valid interpretation of the spec.
Further, the existing rust-analyzer behavior of prepending a leading whitespace character for completion items with any completion score does not handle sorting `TypeAndNameMatch` completions above `TypeMatch` completions. They were both being treated the same.
The first change this PR makes is to set the `sortText` field to either "1" for `TypeAndNameMatch` completions, "2" for `TypeMatch` completions, or "3" for completions which are neither of those. This change works around the potential ambiguity in the LSP spec and fixes completion sorting for users of coc. It also allows `TypeAndNameMatch` items to be sorted above just `TypeMatch` items (of course both of these will be sorted above completion items without a score).
The second change this PR makes is to use the actual completion scores for ref matches. The existing code ignored the actual score and always assumed these would be a high priority completion item.
#### Before
Here coc just sorts based on how close the items are in the file.
#### After
Here we correctly get `zzz` first, since that is both a type and name match. Then we get `ccc` which is just a type match.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
