8800: feat: Make "pull assignments up" assist work in more cases r=Jesse-Bakker a=Jesse-Bakker
Fixes#8771
Co-authored-by: Jesse Bakker <github@jessebakker.com>
There's a tension between keeping a well-architectured minimal
orthogonal set of constructs, and providing convenience functions.
Relieve this pressure by introducing an dedicated module for
non-orthogonal shortcuts.
This is inspired by the django.shortcuts module which serves a similar
purpose architecturally.
8591: Remove SyntaxRewriter usage in insert_use in favor of mutable syntax trees r=matklad a=Veykril
Unfortunately changing `insert_use` to not use `SyntaxRewriter` creates a lot of changes since so much relies on that. But on the other hand this should be the biggest usage of `SyntaxRewriter` I believe.
8638: Remove SyntaxRewriter::from_fn r=Veykril a=Veykril
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
8620: Remove unnecessary braces for extracted block expression r=Veykril a=brandondong
This change addresses the first bullet point of https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/7839.
Specifically, when extracting block expressions, remove the unneeded extra braces inside the generated function.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
8524: Fix extract function with partial block selection r=matklad a=brandondong
**Reproduction:**
```rust
fn foo() {
let n = 1;
let mut v = $0n * n;$0
v += 1;
}
```
1. Select the snippet ($0) and use the "Extract into function" assist.
2. Extracted function is incorrect and does not compile:
```rust
fn foo() {
let n = 1;
let mut v = fun_name(n);
v += 1;
}
fn fun_name(n: i32) {}
```
3. Omitting the ending semicolon from the selection fixes the extracted function:
```rust
fn fun_name(n: i32) -> i32 {
n * n
}
```
**Cause:**
- When `extraction_target` uses a block extraction (semicolon case) instead of an expression extraction (no semicolon case), the user selection is directly used as the TextRange.
- However, the existing function extraction logic for blocks requires that the TextRange spans from start to end of complete statements to work correctly.
- For example:
```rust
fn foo() {
let m = 2;
let n = 1;
let mut v = m $0* n;
let mut w = 3;$0
v += 1;
w += 1;
}
```
produces
```rust
fn foo() {
let m = 2;
let n = 1;
let mut v = m let mut w = fun_name(n);
v += 1;
w += 1;
}
fn fun_name(n: i32) -> i32 {
let mut w = 3;
w
}
```
- The user selected TextRange is directly replaced by the function call which is now in the middle of another statement. The extracted function body only contains statements that were fully covered by the TextRange and so the `* n` code is deleted. The logic for calculating variable usage and outlived variables for the function parameters and return type respectively search within the TextRange and so do not include `m` or `v`.
**Fix:**
- Only extract full statements when using block extraction. If a user selected part of a statement, extract that full statement.
8527: Switch introduce_named_lifetime assist to use mutable syntax tree r=matklad a=iDawer
This extends `GenericParamsOwnerEdit` trait with `get_or_create_generic_param_list` method
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dawer <7803845+iDawer@users.noreply.github.com>
8565: Fill match arms assist: add remaining arms for tuple of enums r=iDawer a=iDawer
Fix for #8493
However, the assist is still flaky and does not use `hir_ty::diagnostics::match_check`
Co-authored-by: Dawer <7803845+iDawer@users.noreply.github.com>
8467: Adds impl Deref assist r=jhgg a=jhgg
This PR adds a new `generate_deref` assist that automatically generates a deref impl for a given struct field.
Check out this gif:
--
I have a few Q's:
- [x] Should I write more tests, if so, what precisely should I test for?
- [x] I have an inline question on line 65, can someone provide guidance? :)
- [x] I can implement this for `ast::TupleField` too. But should it be a separate assist fn, or should I try and jam both into the `generate_deref`?
- [x] I want to follow this up with an assist on `impl $0Deref for T {` which would automatically generate a `DerefMut` impl that mirrors the Deref as well, however, I could probably use some pointers on how to do that, since I'll have to reach into the ast of `fn deref` to grab the field that it's referencing for the `DerefMut` impl.
Co-authored-by: jake <jh@discordapp.com>
8415: Fix faulty assertion when extracting function with macro call r=matklad a=brandondong
**Reproduction:**
```rust
fn main() {
let n = 1;
let k = n * n;
dbg!(n);
}
```
1. Select the second and third lines of the main function. Use the "Extract into function" code assist.
2. Panic occurs in debug, error is logged in release: "[ERROR ide_assists::handlers::extract_function] assertion failed: matches!(path, ast :: Expr :: PathExpr(_))".
3. Function generates successfully on release where the panic was bypassed.
```rust
fn fun_name(n: i32) {
let k = n * n;
dbg!(n);
}
```
**Cause:**
- The generated function will take `n` as a parameter. The extraction logic needs to search the usages of `n` to determine whether it is used mutably or not. The helper `path_element_of_reference` is called for each usage but the second usage is a macro call and fails the `Expr::PathExpr(_)` match assertion.
- The caller of `path_element_of_reference` does implicitly assume it to be a `Expr::PathExpr(_)` in how it looks at its parent node for determining whether it is used mutably. This logic will not work for macros.
- I'm not sure if there are any other cases besides macros where it could be something other than a `Expr::PathExpr(_)`. I tried various examples and could not find any.
**Fix:**
- Update assertion to include the macro case.
- Add a FIXME to properly handle checking if a macro usage requires mutable access. For now, return false instead of running the existing logic that is tailored for `Expr::PathExpr(_)`'s.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
8436: Fix extract function's mutability of variables outliving the body r=matklad a=brandondong
**Reproduction:**
```rust
fn main() {
let mut k = 1;
let mut j = 2;
j += 1;
k += j;
}
```
1. Select the first to third lines of the main function. Use the "Extract into function" code assist.
2. The output is the following which does not compile because the outlived variable `k` is declared as immutable:
```rust
fn main() {
let (k, j) = fun_name();
k += j;
}
fn fun_name() -> (i32, i32) {
let mut k = 1;
let mut j = 2;
j += 1;
(k, j)
}
```
3. We would instead expect the output to be:
```rust
fn main() {
let (mut k, j) = fun_name();
k += j;
}
```
**Fix:**
- Instead of declaring outlived variables as immutable unconditionally, check for any mutable usages outside of the extracted function.
Co-authored-by: Brandon <brandondong604@hotmail.com>
8326: Rewrite reorder fields assist to use mutable syntax trees r=matklad a=Veykril
This also instead uses `Either` to use the typed `RecordPat` and `RecordExpr` nodes, this unfortunately gives a bit of code duplication
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
This adds a "Convert Into to From" assist, useful since clippy has
recently started adding lints on every `Into`.
It covers converting the signature, and converting any `self`/`Self`
references within the body to the correct types.
It does assume that every instance of `Into` can be converted to a
`From`, which I _think_ is the case now. Let me know if there's
something I'm not thinking of and I can try and make it smarter.
8267: Adding gifs and screenshots for features in manual r=matklad a=MozarellaMan
For #6539
This includes most of gif or screenshot examples of most items in the "Features" header. With the exceptions of:
- **On Typing Assists** - couldn't get it to work for a demo, I'm probably missing something?
- **Structural search and replace** - looked to be already a visual example of the feature
- **Workspace symbol** - wasn't sure how best to show this, all of the examples maybe? Also wasn't sure of the best code example to show it off
- **Semantic Syntax Highlighting** - seemed obvious enough to not need a screenshot, but I could easily add this
All the gifs/pngs are hosted in this [comment](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/6539#issuecomment-809574840). Please let me know if any of them aren't suitable (and why) and I'll improve it! Or if you don't like the theme/font
Co-authored-by: Ayomide Bamidele <48062697+MozarellaMan@users.noreply.github.com>
7873: Consider unresolved qualifiers during flyimport r=matklad a=SomeoneToIgnore
Closes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/7679
Takes unresolved qualifiers into account, providing better completions (or none, if the path is resolved or do not match).
Does not handle cases when both path qualifier and some trait has to be imported: there are many extra issues with those (such as overlapping imports, for instance) that will require large diffs to address.
Also does not do a fuzzy search on qualifier, that requires some adjustments in `import_map` for better queries and changes to the default replace range which also seems relatively big to include here.
7933: Improve compilation speed r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <aleksey.kladov@gmail.com>
7898: generate_function assist: infer return type r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
This PR makes two changes to the generate function assist:
1. Attempt to infer an appropriate return type for the generated function
2. If a return type is inferred, and that return type is not unit, don't render the snippet
```rust
fn main() {
let x: u32 = foo$0();
// ^^^ trigger the assist to generate this function
}
// BEFORE
fn foo() ${0:-> ()} {
todo!()
}
// AFTER (only change 1)
fn foo() ${0:-> u32} {
todo!()
}
// AFTER (change 1 and 2, note the lack of snippet around the return type)
fn foo() -> u32 {
todo!()
}
```
These changes are made as two commits, in case we want to omit change 2. I personally feel like it is a nice change, but I could understand there being some opposition.
#### Pros of change 2
If we are able to infer a return type, and especially if that return type is not the unit type, the return type is almost as likely to be correct as the argument names/types. I think this becomes even more true as people learn how this feature works.
#### Cons of change 2
We could never be as confident about the return type as we are about the function argument types, so it is more likely a user will want to change that. Plus it is a confusing UX to sometimes have the cursor highlight the return type after triggering this assist and sometimes not have that happen.
#### Why omit unit type?
The assumption is that if we infer the return type as unit, it is likely just because of the current structure of the code rather than that actually being the desired return type. However, this is obviously just a heuristic and will sometimes be wrong. But being wrong here just means falling back to the exact behavior that existed before this PR.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
