Support multiple targets for checkOnSave (in conjunction with cargo 1.64.0+)
This PR adds support for the ability to pass multiple `--target` flags when using
`cargo` 1.64.0+.
## Questions
I needed to change the type of two configurations options, but I did not plurialize the names to
avoid too much churn, should I ?
## Zulip thread
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/Issue.2013282.20.28supporting.20multiple.20targets.20with.201.2E64.2B.29
## Example
To see it working, on a macOS machine:
```sh
$ cd /tmp
$ cargo new cargo-multiple-targets-support-ra-test
$ cd !$
$ mkdir .cargo
$ echo '
[build]
target = [
"aarch64-apple-darwin",
"x86_64-apple-darwin",
]
' > .cargo/config.toml
$ echo '
fn main() {
#[cfg(all(target_arch = "aarch64", target_os = "macos"))]
{
let a = std::fs::read_to_string("/tmp/test-read");
}
#[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_os = "macos"))]
{
let a = std::fs::read_to_string("/tmp/test-read");
}
#[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_os = "windows"))]
{
let a = std::fs::read_to_string("/tmp/test-read");
}
}
' > src/main.rs
# launch your favorite editor with the version of RA from this PR
#
# You should see warnings under the first two `let a = ...` but not the third
```
## Screen
Helps with #13282
Implement invocation strategy config
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/10793
This allows to change how we run build scripts (and `checkOnSave`), exposing two configs:
- `once`: run the specified command once in the project root (the working dir of the server)
- `per_workspace`: run the specified command per workspace in the corresponding workspace
This also applies to `checkOnSave` likewise, though `once_in_root` is useless there currently, due to https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/11007
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
There are also some other typos in the function names, variable names, and file
names, which I leave as they are. I'm more certain that typos in comments
should be fixed.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
Distinguish between
- there is no build data (for some reason?)
- there is build data, but the cargo package didn't build a proc macro dylib
- there is a proc macro dylib, but it didn't contain the proc macro we expected
- the name did not resolve to any macro (this is now an
unresolved_macro_call even for attributes)
I changed the handling of disabled attribute macro expansion to
immediately ignore the macro and report an unresolved_proc_macro,
because otherwise they would now result in loud unresolved_macro_call
errors. I hope this doesn't break anything.
Also try to improve error ranges for unresolved_macro_call / macro_error
by reusing the code for unresolved_proc_macro. It's not perfect but
probably better than before.
Don't analyze dependencies with `test`; this should fix various cases
where crates use `cfg(not(test))` and so we didn't find things.
"Local" here currently means anything that's not from the registry, so
anything inside the workspace, but also path dependencies. So this isn't
perfect, and users might still need to use
`rust-analyzer.cargo.unsetTest` for these in some cases.
