VSCode behaves strangely, allowing to navigate into label location, but
not allowing to apply hint's text edit, after hint is resolved.
See https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/193124 for details.
For now, stub hint resolution for VSCode specifically.
fix a bunch of clippy lints
fixes a bunch of clippy lints for fun and profit
i'm aware of this repo's position on clippy. The changes are split into separate commits so they can be reviewed separately
This makes code more readale and concise,
moving all format arguments like `format!("{}", foo)`
into the more compact `format!("{foo}")` form.
The change was automatically created with, so there are far less change
of an accidental typo.
```
cargo clippy --fix -- -A clippy::all -W clippy::uninlined_format_args
```
Previously, when line numbers of Rust spans were converted to LSP
ranges, they could underflow resulting in very large line numbers. As
an underflow is always wrong, prevent it and use 0 instead.
10902: Handle multiple cargo check quick fix spans r=Veykril a=brandondong
Resolves https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/10705.
**Cause:**
- For a cargo check diagnostic with multiple spans, only a single quick fix action would be created at the location of `spans[0]`. Additionally, the hover window details would only show the location of `spans[0]` next to the message.
**Fix:**
- Allow cargo check quick fix actions to be triggerable from multiple selection ranges. Specifically, if the selection intersects with any of the replacement spans, the quick fix action is shown.
- No change in behavior for the hover window details. It's pretty minor and I think showing multiple locations next to the message may be more confusing anyways.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
I've noticed that there are various suggestions that rust-analyzer seems
to filter out, even if they make sense.
Here's an example of where it seems like there should be a suggestion,
but there isn't:
It turns out that this specific suggestion is not considered
`MachineApplicable`, which are the only suggestions that rust-analyzer
accepts. However if you read the documentation for `MachineApplicable`,
b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L27-L29)
then you realize that these are specifically only those suggestions that
rust-analyzer could even automatically apply (in some distant future,
behind some setting or so). Other suggestions that may have some
semantic impact do not use `MachineApplicable`. So all other suggestions
are still intended to be suggested to the user, just not automatically
applied without the user being consulted.
b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L22-L24)
So with that in mind, rust-analyzer should almost definitely not filter
out `MaybeIncorrect` (which honestly is named horribly, it just means
that it's a semantic change, not just a syntactical one).
Then there's `HasPlaceholders` which basically is just another semantic
one, but with placeholders. The user will have to make some adjustments,
but the suggestion still is perfectly valid. rust-analyzer could
probably detect those placeholders and put proper "tab through" markers
there for the IDE, but that's not necessary for now.
Then the last one is `Unspecified` which is so unknown that I don't even
know how to judge it, meaning that the suggestion should probably also
just be suggested to the user and then they can decide.
So with all that in mind, I'm proposing to get rid of the check for
Applicability entirely.
