bors[bot] [Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:36:13 +0000 (20:36 +0000)]
Merge #7147
7147: ssr: Allow replacing expressions with statements r=davidlattimore a=MarijnS95
Depends on #6587
Until that is merged, the diff is https://github.com/MarijnS95/rust-analyzer/compare/stmt..replace-expr-with-stmt
---
Now that statements can be matched and replaced (#6587) some usecases require expressions to be replaced with statements as well. This happens when something that can ambiguously be an expression or statement like `if` and loop blocks appear in the last position of a block, as trailing expression. In this case a replacement pattern of the form `if foo(){$a();}==>>$a();` will only substitute `if` blocks in the list of statements but not if they (implicitly) end up in the trailing expression, where they are not wrapped by an EXPR_STMT (but the pattern and template are, as parsing only succeeds for the `stmt ==>> stmt` case).
Instead of adding two rules that match an expression - and emit duplicate matching errors - allow the template for expressions to be a statement if it fails to parse as an expression.
---
Another gross change that does not seem to break any tests currently, but perhaps a safeguard should be added to only allow this kind of replacement in blocks by "pushing" the replacement template to the statement list and clearing the trailing expression?
bors[bot] [Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:23:53 +0000 (15:23 +0000)]
Merge #7154
7154: Show goto type actions for Const and TypeParams r=matklad a=Veykril
Shows goto type actions for type parameters:
Shows goto type actions for const parameters:
Also shows implementations for `Self`:
bors[bot] [Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:14:40 +0000 (11:14 +0000)]
Merge #6587
6587: SSR: Support statement matching and replacing r=davidlattimore a=MarijnS95
For #3186
Hi!
This is a smaller initial patchset that came up while working on support for statement lists (and my first time working on RA :grin:). It has me stuck on trailing semicolons for which I hope to receive some feedback. Matching (and replacing) `let` bindings with a trailing semicolon works fine, but trying to omit these (to make patterns more ergonomic) turns out more complex than expected.
The "optional trailing semicolon solution" implemented in this PR is ugly because `Matcher::attempt_match_token` should only consume a trailing `;` when parsing `let` bindings to prevent other code from breaking. That at the same time has a nasty side-effect of `;` ending up in the matched code: any replacements on that should include the trailing semicolon as well even if it was not in the pattern. A better example is in the tests:
The end result to achieve is (I guess) allowing replacement of let bindings without trailing semicolon like `let x = $a ==>> let x = 1` (but including them on both sides is still fine), and should make replacement in a macro call (where `foo!(let a = 2;)` for a `$x:stmt` is invalid syntax) possible as well. That should allow to enable/fix these tests:
Marijn Suijten [Sun, 3 Jan 2021 16:45:49 +0000 (17:45 +0100)]
ssr: Allow replacing expressions with statements
Now that statements can be matched and replaced (#6587) some usecases
require expressions to be replaced with statements as well. This happens
when something that can ambiguously be an expression or statement like
`if` and loop blocks appear in the last position of a block, as trailing
expression. In this case a replacement pattern of the form `if
foo(){$a();}==>>$a();` will only substitute `if` blocks in the list of
statements but not if they (implicitly) end up in the trailing
expression, where they are not wrapped by an EXPR_STMT (but the pattern
and template are, as parsing only succeeds for the `stmt ==>> stmt`
case).
Instead of adding two rules that match an expression - and emit
duplicate matching errors - allow the template for expressions to be a
statement if it fails to parse as an expression.
bors[bot] [Sun, 3 Jan 2021 18:22:07 +0000 (18:22 +0000)]
Merge #7113
7113: Manual updates r=matklad a=tekul
Add some details on how to build the manual and some clarification on how to deal with "proc macro2 warnings.
For context, this arose from [this question](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-to-disable-rust-analyzer-proc-macro-warnings-in-neovim/53150) on users.rust-lang.org.
bors[bot] [Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:03:15 +0000 (09:03 +0000)]
Merge #7068
7068: Add VSCode command to view the hir of a function body r=theotherphil a=theotherphil
Will fix https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/7061. Very rough initial version just to work out where I needed to wire everything up.
@matklad would you be happy merging a hir visualiser of some kind? If so, do you have any thoughts on what you'd like it show, and how?
I've spent very little time on this thus far, so I'm fine with throwing away the contents of this PR, but I want to avoid taking the time to make this more polished/interactive/useful only to discover that no-one else has any interest in this functionality.
bors[bot] [Sun, 3 Jan 2021 08:56:17 +0000 (08:56 +0000)]
Merge #7115
7115: Migrate HasSource::source to return Option r=matklad a=nick96
I've made a start on fixing #6913 based on the provided work plan, migrating `HasSource::source` to return an `Option`. The simple cases are migrated but there are a few that I'm unsure exactly how they should be handled:
- Logging the processing of functions in `AnalysisStatsCmd::run`: In verbose mode it includes the path to the module containing the function and the syntax range. I've handled this with an if-let but would it be better to blow up here with `expect`? I'm not 100% on the code paths but if we're processing a function definition then the source should exist.
I've handled `source()` in all code paths as `None` being a valid return value but are there some cases where we should just blow up? Also, all I've done is bubble up the returned `None`s, there may be some places where we can recover and still provide something.
Co-authored-by: Nick Spain <nicholas.spain@stileeducation.com> Co-authored-by: Nick Spain <nicholas.spain96@gmail.com>
bors[bot] [Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:42:45 +0000 (17:42 +0000)]
Merge #7133
7133: Proper handling $crate and local_inner_macros r=jonas-schievink a=edwin0cheng
This PR introduces `HygineFrames` to store the macro definition/call site hierarchy in hyginee and when resolving `local_inner_macros` and `$crate`, we use the token to look up the corresponding frame and return the correct value.
See also: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/macro-expansion.html#hygiene-and-hierarchies
Assist is for now only implemented on if/match-statements where the assigment is the last statement in every block,
as for other cases, one would have to check whether the assignment has effects on the rest of the block and
extract a temporary variable for it in the block.
Nick Spain [Fri, 1 Jan 2021 04:33:06 +0000 (15:33 +1100)]
Handle not finding range in Definition::search_scope
The `LifetimeParam` and `Local` variants use `source()` to find their
range. Now that `source()` returns an `Option` we need to handle the
`None` case.
Nick Spain [Fri, 1 Jan 2021 03:14:09 +0000 (14:14 +1100)]
HasSource::source_old -> HasSource::source for places where proc-macros were special cased
In #6901 some special case handling for proc-macros was introduced to
prevent panicing as they have no AST. Now the new HasSource::source
method is used that returns an option.
Generally this was a pretty trivial change, the only thing of much
interest is that `hir::MacroDef` now implements `TryToNav` not `ToNav`
as this allows us to handle `HasSource::source` now returning an option.
Luke Taylor [Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:28:55 +0000 (22:28 +0000)]
Expand doc on dealing with "proc macro not expanded"
Added the error message to the doc for the UnresolvedProcMacro
diagnostic, explaining that either enabling the procMacro setting
or disabling this diagnostic should make the warnings go away.
bors[bot] [Fri, 1 Jan 2021 16:33:45 +0000 (16:33 +0000)]
Merge #7123
7123: Add support for Rust 2021. r=lnicola a=m-ou-se
This adds `2021` in all places where rust-analyzer already knew about `2015` and `2018`.
The only edition-specific behaviour I could find in the source code was gated on a direct comparison with `Edition2015`, so `Edition2021` should (correctly) behave the same as `Edition2018`:
bors[bot] [Fri, 1 Jan 2021 11:06:27 +0000 (11:06 +0000)]
Merge #7116
7116: Fix deep syntax tree bug generated by proc-macro r=jonas-schievink a=edwin0cheng
This PR fixed a bug from `semver-parser` and `pest_derive` crates which generate a very deep syntax tree such that serde reject to de-serialize. To fix this bug, we disabled recursion limit in `serde` (by calling [`Deserializer::disable_recursion_limit`](https://docs.rs/serde_json/1.0.61/serde_json/struct.Deserializer.html#method.disable_recursion_limit))
I have a feeling that we still need some way to protect against bad proc-macro generating huge syntax node, but I have no idea right now.
bors[bot] [Fri, 1 Jan 2021 00:32:59 +0000 (00:32 +0000)]
Merge #7102
7102: Fix completion of Default struct update syntax r=Veykril a=nick96
Previously the inserted text was always `..Default::default()` which ends up as `...Default::default()`
if `.` was typed. Now checks if the current token is `.` and inserts `.Default::default()`
if it is, so `..Default::default()` is correctly completed.
I think there's probably a better way to implement this context aware completion because I've seen it in other parts of rust-analyzer as a user but I'm not sure how to do it.
Fixes #6969
Co-authored-by: Nick Spain <nicholas.spain@stileeducation.com>
projects / rust.git / log