10005: Extend `CargoConfig.unset_test_crates` r=matklad a=regexident
This is to allow for efficiently disabling `#[cfg(test)]` on all crates (by passing `unset_test_crates: UnsetTestCrates::All`) without having to first load the crate graph, when using rust-analyzer as a library.
(FYI: The change doesn't seem to be covered by any existing tests.)
Co-authored-by: Vincent Esche <regexident@gmail.com>
I don't think there's anything wrong with project_model depending on
proc_macro_api directly -- fundamentally, both are about gluing our pure
data model to the messy outside world.
However, it's easy enough to avoid the dependency, so why not.
As an additional consideration, `proc_macro_api` now pulls in `base_db`.
project_model should definitely not depend on that!
The completion of cfg will look at the enabled cfg keys when
performing completion.
It will also look crate features when completing a feature cfg
option. A fixed list of known values for some cfg options are
provided.
For unknown keys it will look at the enabled values for that cfg key,
which means that completion will only show enabled options for those.
If you are opening libcore from rust-lang/rust as opposed to e.g.
goto definition from some other crate which would use the sysroot
instance of libcore, a `#![cfg(not(test))]` would previously have made
all the code excluded from the module tree, breaking the editor
experience.
This puts in a slight hack that checks for the crate name "core" and
turns off `#[cfg(test)]`.
This is a hack to work around miri being included in
our analysis of rustc-dev
Really, we should probably use an include set of the actual root libraries
I'm not sure how those are determined however
I've noticed a bunch of "main loop too long" warnings in console when
typing in Cargo.toml. Profiling showed that the culprit is `rustc
--print cfg` call.
I moved it to the background project loading phase, where it belongs.
This highlighted a problem: we generally use single `cfg`, while it
really should be per crate.
