I don't like our macro tests -- they are brittle and don't inspire
confidence. I think the reason for that is that we try to unit-test
them, but that is at odds with reality, where macro expansion
fundamentally depends on name resolution.
FragmentKind played two roles:
* entry point to the parser
* syntactic category of a macro call
These are different use-cases, and warrant different types. For example,
macro can't expand to visibility, but we have such fragment today.
This PR introduces `ExpandsTo` enum to separate this two use-cases.
I suspect we might further split `FragmentKind` into `$x:specifier` enum
specific to MBE, and a general parser entry point, but that's for
another PR!
The idea here is to eventually get rid of `dyn Diagnostic` and
`DiagnosticSink` infrastructure altogether, and just have a `enum
hir::Diagnostic` instead.
The problem with `dyn Diagnostic` is that it is defined in the lowest
level of the stack (hir_expand), but is used by the highest level (ide).
As a first step, we free hir_expand and hir_def from `dyn Diagnostic`
and kick the can up to `hir_ty`, as an intermediate state. The plan is
then to move DiagnosticSink similarly to the hir crate, and, as final
third step, remove its usage from the ide.
One currently unsolved problem is testing. You can notice that the test
which checks precise diagnostic ranges, unresolved_import_in_use_tree,
was moved to the ide layer. Logically, only IDE should have the infra to
render a specific range.
At the same time, the range is determined with the data produced in
hir_def and hir crates, so this layering is rather unfortunate. Working
on hir_def shouldn't require compiling `ide` for testing.
8432: decl_check: consider outer scopes' allows r=jonas-schievink a=lf-
Fix#8417. Also makes it less noisy about no_mangle annotated stuff the
user can do nothing about.
Note: this still is broken with bitfield! macros. A repro in an ignore
test is included here. I believe this bug is elsewhere, and I don't
think I can work around it here.
I would like help filing the remaining bug, as it does actually affect
users, but I don't know how to describe the behaviour (or even if it
is unintended).
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
Fix#8417. Also makes it less noisy about no_mangle annotated stuff the
user can do nothing about.
Note: this still is broken with bitfield! macros. A repro in an ignore
test is included here. I believe this bug is elsewhere, and I don't
think I can work around it here.
