7970: Fix incorrect diagnostics for failing built in macros r=jonas-schievink a=brandondong
**Reproduction:**
1. Use a built in macro in such a way that rust-analyzer fails to expand it. For example:
**lib.rs**
```
include!("<valid file but without a .rs extension so it is not indexed by rust-analyzer>");
```
2. rust-analyzer highlights the macro call and says the macro itself cannot be resolved even though include! is in the standard library (unresolved-macro-call diagnostic).
3. No macro-error diagnostic is raised.
**Root cause for incorrect unresolved-macro-call diagnostic:**
1. collector:collect_macro_call is able to resolve include! in legacy scope but the expansion fails. Therefore, it's pushed into unexpanded_macros to be retried with module scope.
2. include! fails at the resolution step in collector:resolve_macros now that it's using module scope. Therefore, it's retained in unexpanded_macros.
3. Finally, collector:finish tries resolving the remaining unexpanded macros but only with module scope. include! again fails at the resolution step so a diagnostic is created.
**Root cause for missing macro-error diagnostic:**
1. In collector:resolve_macros, directive.legacy is None since eager expansion failed in collector:collect_macro_call. The macro_call_as_call_id fails to resolve since we're retrying in module scope. Therefore, collect_macro_expansion is not called for the macro and no macro-error diagnostic is generated.
**Fix:**
- In collector:collect_macro_call, do not add failing built-in macros to the unexpanded_macros list and immediately raise the macro-error diagnostic. This is in contrast to lazy macros which are resolved in collector::resolve_macros and later expanded in collect_macro_expansion where a macro-error diagnostic may be raised.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: brandondong <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
8037: Assist is empty 7709 r=Veykril a=chetankhilosiya
Updated the implementation to get the function from implementation
Co-authored-by: Chetan Khilosiya <chetan.khilosiya@gmail.com>
8020: Power up goto_implementation r=matklad a=Veykril
by allowing it to be invoked on references of names, now showing all (trait)
implementations of the given type in all crates instead of just the defining
crate as well as including support for builtin types
Example screenshot of `impl`s of Box in `log`, `alloc`, `std` and the current crate. Before you had to invoke it on the definition where it would only show the `impls` in `alloc`.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
8027: Completion context remove exact match method in favor of fields r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
This is a minor cleanup PR following #8008. It removes the `expected_name_and_type` method on completion context in favor of using the fields.
I thought this method was used in more places, or else it may have just made sense to make this change directly in #8008🤷
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
8008: Completion context expected type r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
Currently there are two ways completions use to determine the expected type. There is the `expected_type` field on the `CompletionContext`, as well as the `expected_name_and_type` method on the `RenderContext`. These two things returned slightly different results, and their results were only valid if you had pre-checked some (undocumented) invariants. A simple combination of the two approaches doesn't work because they are both too willing to go far up the syntax tree to find something that fits what they are looking for.
This PR makes the following changes:
1. Updates the algorithm that sets `expected_type` on `CompletionContext`
2. Adds `expected_name` field to `CompletionContext`
3. Re-writes the `expected_name_and_type` method to simply return the underlying fields from `CompletionContext` (I'd like to save actually removing this method for a follow up PR just to keep the scope of the changes down)
4. Adds unit tests for the `expected_type`/`expected_name` fields
All the existing unit tests still pass (unmodified), but this new algorithm certainly has some gaps (although I believe all the `FIXME` introduced in this PR are also flaws in the current code). I wanted to stop here and get some feedback though - is this approach fundamentally sound?
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
8018: Make Ty wrap TyKind in an Arc r=flodiebold a=flodiebold
... to further move towards Chalk.
This is a bit of a slowdown (218ginstr vs 213ginstr for inference on RA), even though it allows us to unwrap the Substs in `TyKind::Ref` etc..
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
What happens here is that we lower `: ` to a missing expression, and
then correctly record that the corresponding field expression resolves
to a specific field. Where we fail is in the mapping of syntax to this
missing expression. Doing it via `ast_field.expr()` fails, as that
expression is `None`. Instead, we go in the opposite direcition and ask
each lowered field about its source.
This works, but has wrong complexity `O(N)` and, really, the
implementation is just too complex. We need some better management of
data here.
8021: Enable searching for builtin types r=matklad a=Veykril
Not too sure how useful this is for reference search overall, but for completeness sake it should be there
Also enables document highlighting for them.
8022: some clippy::performance fixes r=matklad a=matthiaskrgr
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 unnecessary resizing
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Krüger <matthias.krueger@famsik.de>
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
7966: Diagnose files that aren't in the module tree r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
Fixes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/6377
I'm not sure if this is the best way to do this. It will cause false positives for all `include!`d files (though I'm not sure how much IDE functionality we have for these).
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
