Distinguish between
- there is no build data (for some reason?)
- there is build data, but the cargo package didn't build a proc macro dylib
- there is a proc macro dylib, but it didn't contain the proc macro we expected
- the name did not resolve to any macro (this is now an
unresolved_macro_call even for attributes)
I changed the handling of disabled attribute macro expansion to
immediately ignore the macro and report an unresolved_proc_macro,
because otherwise they would now result in loud unresolved_macro_call
errors. I hope this doesn't break anything.
Also try to improve error ranges for unresolved_macro_call / macro_error
by reusing the code for unresolved_proc_macro. It's not perfect but
probably better than before.
Don't analyze dependencies with `test`; this should fix various cases
where crates use `cfg(not(test))` and so we didn't find things.
"Local" here currently means anything that's not from the registry, so
anything inside the workspace, but also path dependencies. So this isn't
perfect, and users might still need to use
`rust-analyzer.cargo.unsetTest` for these in some cases.
