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.
9227: Add a config setting to disable the 'test' cfg in specified crates r=matklad a=lf-
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.
Core does not need to ever be edited with `#[cfg(test)]` enabled,
as the tests are in another crate.
This PR puts in a slight hack that checks for the crate name "core" and
turns off `#[cfg(test)]` for that crate.
Fixes#9203Fixes#9226
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
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)]`.
Cargo commands are affected by the `.cargo/config` files above
their working directory. If cargo is invoked from above the directory
holding `Cargo.toml`, it may not pick up important settings like
registry replacements, causing it to behave differently or even fail.
Most cargo invocations are currently setting their working directories
to the directory containing `Cargo.toml`, but a couple of paths remain
in which cargo is invoked from the default workspace root instead.
This change fixes that, resolving some cargo check failures that I
experienced in a multi-root workspace in which packages used different
registries.
At the moment,the popup is just a bazillion of Cargo's "Compiling this\nCompiling that",
which is not that useful.
--quiet still displays error, which is what we needc
reading both stdout & stderr is a common gotcha, you need to drain them
concurrently to avoid deadlocks. Not sure why I didn't do the right
thing from the start. Seems like I assumed the stderr is short? That's
not the case when cargo spams `compiling xyz` messages
use vec![] instead of Vec::new() + push()
avoid redundant clones
use chars instead of &str for single char patterns in ends_with() and starts_with()
allocate some Vecs with capacity to avoid unneccessary resizing
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.
Rather than eagerly converting JSON, we losslessly keep it as is, and
change the shape of user-submitted data at the last moment.
This also allows us to remove a bunch of wrong Defaults
7071: Pass --all-targets to "cargo check" when discovering external resources r=matklad a=WasabiFan
There is a repro case and background in the linked issue.
In short, the goal of this MR is to allow rust-analyzer to discover proc-macros which come from your tests (including, most importantly, dev-dependencies).
By default, `cargo check` implies the equivalent of `--lib --bins`, meaning it'll check your libraries and binaries -- but not tests! This means proc-macros (or, I guess, build scripts as well) weren't discovered by rust-analyzer if they came from tests.
One solution would be to manually add `--lib --bins --tests` (i.e., just augment the effective options to include tests). However, in this MR, I threw in `--all-targets`, which [according to the docs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/commands/cargo-check.html#target-selection) implies `--benches --examples` too. I have absolutely no idea what repercussions that will have on rust-analyzer for other projects, nor do I know if it's a problem that build scripts will now be discovered for tests/examples/benches. But I am not aware of a reason you _wouldn't_ want to discover these things in your examples too.
I think the main drawback of this change is that it will likely slow down the `cargo check`. At a minimum, it'll now be checking your tests _and_ their dependencies. The `cargo check` docs also say that including `--tests` as I have here may cause your lib crate to be built _twice_, once for the normal target and again for unit tests. My reading of that caveat suggests that "building twice" means it's built once for the tests _inside_ your lib, with a test profile, and again for any consumers of your lib, now using a normal release profile or similar. This doesn't seem surprising.
Very minor caveat: `--tests` will not include tests within a binary if it has `test = false` set in `Cargo.toml`. (I discovered this manually by trial-and-error, but hey, it actually says that in the docs!) This is likely not an issue, but _does_ mean that if you are -- for whatever reason -- disabling tests like that and then manually specifying `cargo test --package <...> --bin <...>` to run them, rust-analyzer will remain unaware of proc-macros in your tests.
I have confirmed this fixes the original issue in my sandbox example linked in #7034 and in my own project in which I originally discovered this. I've left it configured as my default RA language server and will report back if I notice any unexpected side-effects.
Fixes#7034
Co-authored-by: Kaelin Laundry <wasabifan@outlook.com>
This modifies the logic for calling cargo metadata so that it will use
the host platform if no explicit target platform is given. This is
needed since cargo metadata defaults to outputting information for _all_
targets.
Fixes#6908.
Since we just tried running `rustup component add`, it doesn't make sense to me
to recommend trying that again. If we're reaching this case, it's probably more
likely that rustc was installed via package manager, in which case the source
should be installed the same way (e.g. if you install the rust-src package on
Ubuntu it will install a symlink in the right place to make our sysroot
detection work).
