fix: Do not retry inlay hint requests
Should close https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/13372, retrying the way its currently implemented is not ideal as we do not adjust offsets in the requests, but doing that is a major PITA, so this should at least work around one of the more annoying issues stemming from it.
fix: don't replace `SyntaxToken` with `SyntaxNode`
Fixes#14339
When we inline method calls, we replace the `self` parameter with a local variable `this`. We have been replacing the `self` **tokens** with `NameRef` **nodes**, which makes the AST malformed. This leads to crash when we apply path transformation after the replacement (which only takes place when the method is generic and such scenario was not tested).
Add Cargo-style project discovery for Buck and Bazel Users
This feature requires the user to add a command that generates a `rust-project.json` from a set of files. Project discovery can be invoked in two ways:
1. At extension activation time, which includes the generated `rust-project.json` as part of the linkedProjects argument in `InitializeParams`.
2. Through a new command titled "rust-analyzer: Add current file to workspace", which makes use of a new, rust-analyzer-specific LSP request that adds the workspace without erasing any existing workspaces. Note that there is no mechanism to _remove_ workspaces other than "quit the rust-analyzer server".
Few notes:
- I think that the command-running functionality _could_ merit being placed into its own extension (and expose it via extension contribution points) to provide build-system idiomatic progress reporting and status handling, but I haven't (yet) made an extension that does this nor does Buck expose this sort of functionality.
- This approach would _just work_ for Bazel. I'll try and get the tool that's responsible for Buck integration open-sourced soon.
- On the testing side of things, I've used this in around my employer's Buck-powered monorepo and it's a nice experience. That being said, I can't think of an open-source repository where this can be tested in public, so you might need to trust me on this one.
I'd love to get feedback on:
- Naming of LSP extensions/new commands. I'm not too pleased with how "rust-analyzer: Add current file to workspace" is named, in that it's creating a _new_ workspace. I think that this command being added should be gated on `rust-analyzer.discoverProjectCommand` on being set, so I can add this in sequent commits.
- My Typescript. It's not particularly good.
- Suggestions on handling folders with _both_ Cargo and non-Cargo build systems and if I make activation a bit better.
(I previously tried to add this functionality entirely within rust-analyzer-the-LSP server itself, but matklad was right—an extension side approach is much, much easier.)
internal: add `as_slice` to `hir::Type`
~`remove_slice`~ `as_slice` is same as `remove_ref` but for slices.
Though there is `as_array` which I believe was named such because it also gets the length of the array, maybe. I am still shaky on the names feel free to suggest corrections.
feat: add `is_float` & `is_char` to `hir::Type`
Some useful functions we didn't have on `Type` (were present on `BuiltinType`).
Also, I am considering exposing `TyKind` with `get_kind`, let me know if that's a better idea than implementing these API extensions incrementally.
Add path of workspace root folders to status output
Hi folks! Just a quick addition to the status output. There are some colleagues of mine who use a mix of Buck and Cargo. A person spent a bit of time this past week trying to figure out there the `rust-project.json` was coming from and pointed out that `rust-analyzer: Status` could be a good place to put this information. rust-analyzer doesn't seem to record the full path of the `Cargo.toml` or the `rust-project.json`, just the root directory. While not perfect, this should be enough for people to unblock themselves on. Here's an example of `rust-analyzer: Status` on the rust-analyzer repo:
```
Workspaces:
Loaded 192 packages across 1 workspace.
Workspace roots: [AbsPath("/Users/dbarsky/Developer/rust-analyzer")]
Analysis:
57mb of files
0b of index symbols (0)
2514 trees, 128 preserved
29535 trees, 128 preserved (Macros)
0b in total
File info:
Crate: rust_analyzer(CrateId(131))
Dependencies: proc_macro=CrateId(5), core=CrateId(2), alloc=CrateId(0), std=CrateId(7), test=CrateId(9), always_assert=CrateId(12), anyhow=CrateId(13), cfg=CrateId(25), crossbeam_channel=CrateId(35), dissimilar=CrateId(41), expect_test=CrateId(46), flycheck=CrateId(50), hir=CrateId(56), hir_def=CrateId(57), hir_ty=CrateId(59), ide=CrateId(63), ide_db=CrateId(66), ide_ssr=CrateId(68), itertools=CrateId(73), jod_thread=CrateId(75), lsp_server=CrateId(83), lsp_types=CrateId(85), mbe=CrateId(87), num_cpus=CrateId(96), oorandom=CrateId(99), parking_lot=CrateId(102), proc_macro_api=CrateId(110), proc_macro_srv=CrateId(111), profile=CrateId(118), project_model=CrateId(119), rayon=CrateId(125), rustc_hash=CrateId(136), scip=CrateId(141), serde=CrateId(145), serde_json=CrateId(147), sourcegen=CrateId(153), stdx=CrateId(155), syntax=CrateId(158), test_utils=CrateId(159), threadpool=CrateId(165), toolchain=CrateId(170), tracing=CrateId(171), tracing_log=CrateId(174), tracing_subscriber=CrateId(175), tracing_tree=CrateId(176), tt=CrateId(177), vfs=CrateId(188), vfs_notify=CrateId(189), xflags=CrateId(192), xshell=CrateId(194)
```
This feature requires the user to add a command that generates a
`rust-project.json` from a set of files. Project discovery can be invoked
in two ways:
1. At extension activation time, which includes the generated
`rust-project.json` as part of the linkedProjects argument in
InitializeParams
2. Through a new command titled "Add current file to workspace", which
makes use of a new, rust-analyzer specific LSP request that adds
the workspace without erasing any existing workspaces.
I think that the command-running functionality _could_ merit being
placed into its own extension (and expose it via extension contribution
points), if only provide build-system idiomatic progress reporting and
status handling, but I haven't (yet) made an extension that does this.
