Fix `tt::Punct`'s spacing calculation
Fixes#13499
We currently set a `tt::Punct`'s spacing to `Spacing::Joint` unless its next token is a trivia (i.e. whitespaces or comment). As I understand it, rustc only [sets `Spacing::Joint` if the next token is an operator](5b3e909075/compiler/rustc_parse/src/lexer/tokentrees.rs (L77-L78)) and we should follow it to guarantee the consistent behavior of proc macros.
Fix the length displayed for byte string literals with escaped newlines
This is a fix for the problem I reported earlier: "the length of byte strings containing escaped newlines is displayed two bytes longer when the first escaped character is a newline".
I would appreciate it if you could review the fix.
Many thanks.
Closes#13567
The length of byte strings containing escaped newlines is displayed two
bytes longer when the first escaped character is a newline.
This is due to a small bug in handling the first escaped newline in
string literals.
Closes#13567
Feat: extracted method from trait impl is placed in existing impl
**Before**
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1759192/183872883-3b0eafd2-d1dc-440e-9e66-38e3372f8b64.mp4
**After**
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1759192/183875769-87f34c7d-52f0-4dfc-9766-f591ee738ebb.mp4
Previously, when triggering a method extraction from within an impl trait block, then this would always create a new impl block for
the struct, even if there already is one. Now, if there is already an existing trait-less impl block, then it'll put the extracted method in there.
**Caveats**:
- It currently requires the target impl block to be non-empty. This limitation is because the current architecture takes a `node_to_insert_after` as reference for where to insert the extracted function. An empty impl block doesn't have such a reference node, since it's empty. It seems that supporting this requires a much larger and more complex change.
- This is my first contribution in rust, so apologies for any beginner mistakes.
internal: Migrate `ide_assists::utils` and `ide_assists::handlers` to use format arg captures (part 1)
This not only serves as making future migration to mutable syntax trees easier, it also finds out what needs to be migrated in the first place.
~~Aside from the first commit, subsequent commits are structured to only deal with one file/handler at a time.~~
This is the first of 3 PRs, migrating:
Utils:
- `gen_trait_fn_body`
- `render_snippet`
- `ReferenceConversion`
- `convert_type`
- `getter`
Handlers:
- `add_explicit_type`
- `add_return_type`
- `add_turbo_fish`
- `apply_demorgan`
- `auto_import`
- `convert_comment_block`
- `convert_integer_literal`
- `convert_into_to_from`
- `convert_iter_for_each_to_for`
- `convert_let_else_to_match`
- `convert_tuple_struct_to_named_struct`
- `convert_two_arm_bool_match_to_matches_macro`
- `destructure_tuple_binding`
- `extract_function`
- `extract_module`
- `extract_struct_from_enum_variant`
- `extract_type_alias`
- `extract_variable`
- `fix_visibility`
scip: Generate symbols for local crates.
Consider something like:
```
// a.rs
pub struct Foo { .. } // Foo is "local 1"
fn something() {
crate:🅱️:Bar::new() // Bar is "local 1", but of "b.rs"
}
// b.rs
pub struct Bar { .. } // "local 1"
```
Without this there's no way to disambiguate whether "local 1" references "Bar" or "Foo".
feat: add config for inserting must_use in `generate_enum_as_method`
Should fix#13312
Didn't add a test because I was not sure on how to add test for a specific configuration option, tried to look for the usages for other `AssistConfig` variants but couldn't find any in `tests`. If there is a way to test this, do point me towards it.
I tried to extract the formatting string as a common `template_string` and only have if-else for that, but it didn't compile :(
Also it seems these tests are failing:
```
test config::tests::generate_config_documentation ... FAILED
test config::tests::generate_package_json_config ... FAILED
```
Can you also point me to how to correct these 😅 ( I guess there is some command to automatically generate these? )
fix: make custom expr prefix completions to understand refs
Possible fix of #7929
While reviewing the postfix completion code I saw that while calling `add_custom_postfix_completions` we were doing it under the part where reference was not taken into consideration, but as we are only adding postfix completions with `Expr` scope ( [source](ba28e19b78/crates/ide-completion/src/completions/postfix.rs (L272)) )
I shifted the `add_custom_postfix_completions` call to part where references are considered
I am not sure if this is the correct fix or I am understanding the problem exactly but this small move seemed to have fixed the issue :)
