This will now hide "value", "pat", "rhs" and "other"
These words were selected from the std because they are used in common functions with only a single param and are obvious by their use.
I think it would be good to also hide "bytes" if the type is `[u8; n]` but I'm not sure how to get the param type signature
It will also hide the hint if the passed param starts or end with the param_name
3899: Enable the SemanticTokensFeature by default r=matklad a=kjeremy
This is covered under vscode's "editor.semanticHighlighting.enabled"
setting plus the user has to have a theme that has opted into highlighting.
Bumps required vscode stable to 1.44
Closes#3773
Co-authored-by: kjeremy <kjeremy@gmail.com>
This is covered under vscode's "editor.semanticHighlighting.enabled"
setting plus the user has to have a theme that has opted into highlighting.
Bumps required vscode stable to 1.44
3884: Match check fix missing pattern panic r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
As reported by @cynecx, match arm exhaustiveness checking could panic when tuple enums were missing their pattern. This was reported in the comments of #3706.
This fixes the panic, and adds a similar test to ensure tuples don't have this problem.
It turns out malformed tuple patterns are caught in the "type check" outside the `is_useful` function, while malformed enum tuple patterns are not. This makes sense to me in hindsight, since the type checker can tell that an enum is the right type even if it is missing its internal pattern, but a tuple (non-enum) just becomes a different type if it is "missing" its pattern. This discrepency is why we report a diagnostic in the tuple case (because all arms are filtered out, so there are missing arms), but not in the enum tuple case (because we return an `Err(MalformedMatchArm)` from `is_useful`). I don't think this is that big of a deal, because in both cases this is malformed code and there should eventually be a `MalformedMatchArm` diagnostic or similar. But perhaps we should change things so that if any arm fails the type check we skip the entire diagnostic? That would at least make these two cases behave in the same way.
@flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
- Adds a new AstElement trait that is implemented by all generated
node, token and enum structs
- Overhauls the code generators to code-generate all tokens, and
also enhances enums to support including tokens, node, and nested
enums
3826: Flatten nested highlight ranges during DFS traversal r=matklad a=ltentrup
Implements the flattening of nested highlights from #3447.
There is a caveat: I needed to add `Clone` to `HighlightedRange` to split highlight ranges ~and the nesting does not appear in the syntax highlighting test (it does appear in the accidental-quadratic test but there it is not checked against a ground-truth)~.
I have added a test case for the example mentioned in #3447.
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
3892: Add L_DOLLAR for TYPE_RECOVERY_SET r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR is a hot fix for issue #3861 that just prevent it make the parser being stuck.
The actual problem described in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3873#issuecomment-610208693 is a very deep rabbit hole I don't want to dig right now :(
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
3882: Move computation of missing fields into hir r=matklad a=matklad
cc @SomeoneToIgnore, this is that refactoring that moves computation of missing fields to hir.
it actually removes meaningful duplication between diagnostics code and the completion code. Nontheless, it's a net addition of code :(
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <aleksey.kladov@gmail.com>
3706: missing match arms diagnostic r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
Following up on https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3689#issuecomment-602718222, this PR creates a missing match arms diagnostic.
At the moment this is a very early draft, but I wanted to open it just to get some initial feedback.
Initial questions:
* Have I roughly created the correct boilerplate?
* Inside the new `validate_match` function:
* Am I correct in thinking I want to do validation by comparing the match arms against `match_expr`? And when analyzing `match_expr` I should be looking at it as a `hir_def::expr::Expr`?
* I mostly copied the chained if-let statements from the struct validation. Shouldn't there be a non-failable way to get an AstPtr from the hir data structures?
Thanks for all the guidance.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
