2887: Initial auto import action implementation r=matklad a=SomeoneToIgnore
Closes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/2180
Adds an auto import action implementation.
This implementation is not ideal and has a few limitations:
* The import search functionality should be moved into a separate crate accessible from ra_assists.
This requires a lot of changes and a preliminary design.
Currently the functionality is provided as a trait impl, more on that here: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/2180#issuecomment-575690942
* Due to the design desicion from the previous item, no doctests are run for the new aciton (look for a new FIXME in the PR)
* For the same reason, I have to create the mock trait implementaion to test the assist
* Ideally, I think we should have this feature as a diagnostics (that detects an absense of an import) that has a corresponding quickfix action that gets evaluated on demand.
Curretly we perform the import search every time we resolve the import which looks suboptimal.
This requires `classify_name_ref` to be moved from ra_ide, so not done currently.
A few improvements to the imports mechanism to be considered later:
* Constants like `ra_syntax::SyntaxKind::NAME` are not imported, because they are not present in the database
* Method usages are not imported, they are found in the database, but `find_use_path` does not return any import paths for them
* Some import paths returned by the `find_use_path` method end up in `core::` or `alloc::` instead of `std:`, for example: `core::fmt::Debug` instead of `std::fmt::Debug`.
This is not an error techically, but still looks weird.
* No detection of cases where a trait should be imported in order to be able to call a method
* Improve `auto_import_text_edit` functionality: refactor it and move away from the place it is now, add better logic for merging the new import with already existing imports
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
2899: Provide more runners for potential tests r=matklad a=SomeoneToIgnore
Based on the https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Fwg-rls-2.2E0/topic/Runners.20for.20custom.20test.20annotations discussion.
Adds a test runner for every method that has an annotation that contains `test` word in it, allowing to run tests annotated with custom testing annotations such as `#[tokio::test]`, `#[test_case(...)]` and others at costs of potentially emitting some false-positives.
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
@matklad mentioned this might be a good idea.
So the general idea is that we don't really need the lock, as we can
just clone the check watcher state when creating a snapshot. We can then
use `Arc::get_mut` to get mutable access to the state from `WorldState`
when needed.
Running with this it seems to improve responsiveness a bit while cargo
is running, but I have no hard numbers to prove it. In any case, a
serialization point less is always better when we're trying to be
responsive.
This changes the way we print things to first construct a mapping from
events to the children and uses that mapping to actually print things.
It should not change the actual output that we produce.
The new approach two benefits:
* It avoids a potential quadratic behavior of the previous approach.
For instance, for a vector of N elements:
```
[Message{level: (N - 1)}, ..., Message{level: 1}, Message{level: 0}]
```
we would first do a linear scan to find entry with level 0, then
another scan to find one with level 1, etc.
* It makes it much easier to improve the output in the future, because
we now pre-compute the children for each entry and can easily take
that into account when printing.
Signed-off-by: Michal Terepeta <michal.terepeta@gmail.com>
2877: "Insert explicit type " assist fix#2869, fix typo r=matklad a=TomasKralCZ
So this was quite straightforward. I basically looked at how the other assists work and tried doing something simillar. I also fixed a typo in the other assist.
Co-authored-by: TomasKralCZ <tomas@kral.hk>
Previously `ra_prof` wouldn't actually print the unaccounted time in
some cases.
We would print, for instance, this:
```
5ms - foo
2ms - bar
```
instead of:
```
5ms - foo
2ms - bar
3ms - ???
```
The fix is to properly handle the case when an entry has 0 children
instead of using the `last` variable.
Signed-off-by: Michal Terepeta <michal.terepeta@gmail.com>
2865: fix(mixed): fixed a couple of typos and added a todo r=kjeremy a=Veetaha
Fixed a couple of typos and added a todo while studying the codebase.
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <gerzoh1@gmail.com>
2827: Fix array element attribute position r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR fixed a bug which an ATTR node insert in the wrong place in array element. ~~And introduce `precede_next` for allow outer attributes to insert into a parsed `expr`.~~
related #2783
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
2837: Accidentally quadratic r=matklad a=matklad
Our syntax highlighting is accdentally quadratic. Current state of the PR fixes it in a pretty crude way, looks like for the proper fix we need to redo how source-analyzer works.
**NB:** don't be scared by diff stats, that's mostly a test-data file
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <aleksey.kladov@gmail.com>
2844: Use dummy value for line! and column! macro r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Use dummy value `0` for line! and column! macro.
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
2834: refactor(ra_syntax.validation): removed code duplication from validate_literal() r=kiljacken a=Veetaha
Hi! This is my first ever contribution to this project.
I've taken some dirty job from issue #223
This is a simple atomic PR to remove code duplication according to FIXME comment in the function that is the main focus of the further development.
I just didn't want to mix refactoring with the implementation of new features...
I am not sure whether you prefer such atomic PRs here or you'd rather have a single PR that contains all atomic commits inside of it?
So if you want me to add all that validation in one PR I'll mark this one as WIP and update it when the work is finished, otherwise, I'll go with the option of creating separate PRs per each feature of validation of strings, numbers, and comments respectively.
### Comments about refactoring
Yeah, reducing the duplication is quite hard here, extracting into stateless functions could be another option but the number of their arguments would be very big and repeated across char and string implementations so that just writing their types and names would become cumbersome.
I tried the option of having everything captured implicitly in the closure but failed since rust doesn't have templated (or generic) closures as C++ does, this is needed because `unescape_byte*()` and `unescape_char|str()` have different return types...
Maybe I am missing something here? I may be wrong because I am not enough experienced in Rust...
Well, I am awaiting any kind of feedback!
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <gerzoh1@gmail.com>
