bors[bot] [Wed, 17 Mar 2021 07:20:28 +0000 (07:20 +0000)]
Merge #8048
8048: Fix missing unresolved macro diagnostic in function body r=edwin0cheng a=brandondong
This was an issue I found while working on https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7970.
**Reproduction:**
1. Call a non-existent macro in a function body.
```
fn main() {
foo!();
}
```
2. No diagnostics are raised. An unresolved-macro-call diagnostic is expected.
3. If the macro call is instead outside of the function body, this works as expected.
I believe this worked previously and regressed in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805.
**Behavior prior to https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805:**
- The unresolved-macro-call diagnostic did not exist. Instead, a macro-error diagnostic would be raised with the text "could not resolve macro [path]".
- This was implemented by adding an error to the error sink (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8L657).
- The error was propagated through https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body.rs#L123 eventually reaching https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body/lower.rs#L569.
**Behavior after:**
- Instead of writing to the error sink, an UnresolvedMacro error is now returned (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8R631).
- The parent caller throws away the error as its function signature is `Option<MacroCallId>` (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7805/files#diff-50a326c5ae465bd9b31ee4310186380aa06e4fa1f6b41dbc0aed5bcc656a3cb8R604).
- We instead now reach the warn condition (https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body.rs#L124) and no diagnostics are created in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/1a82af3527e476d52410ff4dfd2fb4c57466abcb/crates/hir_def/src/body/lower.rs#L575.
**Fix:**
- Make sure to propagate the UnresolvedMacro error. Report the error using the new unresolved-macro-call diagnostic.
bors[bot] [Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:05:24 +0000 (08:05 +0000)]
Merge #7900 #8000
7900: show function params in completion detail r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
This resolves #7842 by updating the detail for function completions from `-> T` to `fn(T, U) -> V`. I added an expicit unit test for this, `ide_completion::render::fn_detail_includes_args_and_return_type`, which passes.
Lots of other unit tests fail (~60 of them) due to this change, although I believe the failures are purely cosmetic (they were testing the exact format of this output). I'm happy to go update those tests, but before I do that I'd like to make sure this is in fact the format we want for the detail?
edit - I realized `UPDATE_EXPECT=1 cargo test` automatically updates `expect!` tests. Big :+1: to whoever worked on that! So I'll go ahead and update all these tests soon. But I still would like to confirm `fn(T, U) -> V` is the desired content in the `detail` field.
8000: Use hir formatter for hover text r=matklad a=oxalica
bors[bot] [Tue, 16 Mar 2021 07:57:33 +0000 (07:57 +0000)]
Merge #8036 #8046
8036: completions: provide relevance bonus for enum types, and suggest ref matches for fn and enum r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
This PR makes several improvements to completions and completion sorting:
1. Provide exact match type relevance score bonus for enum variants
2. Suggest `&Foo` (ref_match) for enums if that is an exact type match
3. Suggest `&foo()` (ref_match) if `foo` returns a type which would be an exact match either with the reference or due to a `Deref` impl
I think generic types will require some kind of fancier logic when testing for `exact_type_match`, so for now `Option`/`Result`/etc unfortunately still don't have great completions.
### Implementation
I implemented this in a way that I think makes it most likely for each completion type to be handled consistently. Just replace `CompletionItem::new` with `CompletionItem::new_with_type_info` and `exact_type_match`/`exact_name_match`/`ref_match` are all handled for you, in a way which is sure to be consistent across completion types.
This approach does introduce some coupling/plumbing that didn't exist before. Notice for example `set_is_local` on the builder, because `set_relevance` was removed from the builder to enforce that the relevance was built "properly" with `CompletionItem::new_with_type_info`. But I think there are benefits to this approach, like `CompletionRelevance` should probably consider deprecation status, and we already tell the builder about that, so in the (likely near term) future we can just pass that information along to `CompletionRelevance` when the user calls `set_deprecated` rather than the user having to manually set it in two places. This basically just hides `CompletionRelevance` from the individual completions, so they only worry about the `CompletionItem` interface. At the moment this seems like a cleaner approach to me, but I'm open to feedback here.
edit - I've reimplemented this in a simpler way, per feedback below.
8046: Prefer match to if let else r=matklad a=matklad
bors[bot] [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:24:22 +0000 (18:24 +0000)]
Merge #7970
7970: Fix incorrect diagnostics for failing built in macros r=jonas-schievink a=brandondong
**Reproduction:**
1. Use a built in macro in such a way that rust-analyzer fails to expand it. For example:
**lib.rs**
```
include!("<valid file but without a .rs extension so it is not indexed by rust-analyzer>");
```
2. rust-analyzer highlights the macro call and says the macro itself cannot be resolved even though include! is in the standard library (unresolved-macro-call diagnostic).
3. No macro-error diagnostic is raised.
**Root cause for incorrect unresolved-macro-call diagnostic:**
1. collector:collect_macro_call is able to resolve include! in legacy scope but the expansion fails. Therefore, it's pushed into unexpanded_macros to be retried with module scope.
2. include! fails at the resolution step in collector:resolve_macros now that it's using module scope. Therefore, it's retained in unexpanded_macros.
3. Finally, collector:finish tries resolving the remaining unexpanded macros but only with module scope. include! again fails at the resolution step so a diagnostic is created.
**Root cause for missing macro-error diagnostic:**
1. In collector:resolve_macros, directive.legacy is None since eager expansion failed in collector:collect_macro_call. The macro_call_as_call_id fails to resolve since we're retrying in module scope. Therefore, collect_macro_expansion is not called for the macro and no macro-error diagnostic is generated.
**Fix:**
- In collector:collect_macro_call, do not add failing built-in macros to the unexpanded_macros list and immediately raise the macro-error diagnostic. This is in contrast to lazy macros which are resolved in collector::resolve_macros and later expanded in collect_macro_expansion where a macro-error diagnostic may be raised.
bors[bot] [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:34:23 +0000 (14:34 +0000)]
Merge #8030
8030: Add diesel to the benchmark suite r=lnicola a=weiznich
This commit adds diesel to the continuosly run benchmark suite. Diesel
heavily relies internally on macro generated code. Additionally there
are lots of complicated trait releations used as part of their API.
Therefore this benchmark will be quite sensitive to:
* Performance related changes in the macro expanding code
* Performance related changes while resolving trait bounds
CC #7950
cc @lnicola
Co-authored-by: Georg Semmler <github@weiznich.de>
Georg Semmler [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:19:16 +0000 (15:19 +0100)]
Add diesel to the benchmark suite
This commit adds diesel to the continuosly run benchmark suite. Diesel
heavily relies internally on macro generated code. Additionally there
are lots of complicated trait releations used as part of their API.
Therefore this benchmark will be quite sensitive to:
* Performance related changes in the macro expanding code
* Performance related changes while resolving trait bounds
bors[bot] [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:08:26 +0000 (14:08 +0000)]
Merge #8020
8020: Power up goto_implementation r=matklad a=Veykril
by allowing it to be invoked on references of names, now showing all (trait)
implementations of the given type in all crates instead of just the defining
crate as well as including support for builtin types
Example screenshot of `impl`s of Box in `log`, `alloc`, `std` and the current crate. Before you had to invoke it on the definition where it would only show the `impls` in `alloc`.
bors[bot] [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:59:47 +0000 (12:59 +0000)]
Merge #8008
8008: Completion context expected type r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
Currently there are two ways completions use to determine the expected type. There is the `expected_type` field on the `CompletionContext`, as well as the `expected_name_and_type` method on the `RenderContext`. These two things returned slightly different results, and their results were only valid if you had pre-checked some (undocumented) invariants. A simple combination of the two approaches doesn't work because they are both too willing to go far up the syntax tree to find something that fits what they are looking for.
This PR makes the following changes:
1. Updates the algorithm that sets `expected_type` on `CompletionContext`
2. Adds `expected_name` field to `CompletionContext`
3. Re-writes the `expected_name_and_type` method to simply return the underlying fields from `CompletionContext` (I'd like to save actually removing this method for a follow up PR just to keep the scope of the changes down)
4. Adds unit tests for the `expected_type`/`expected_name` fields
All the existing unit tests still pass (unmodified), but this new algorithm certainly has some gaps (although I believe all the `FIXME` introduced in this PR are also flaws in the current code). I wanted to stop here and get some feedback though - is this approach fundamentally sound?
Aleksey Kladov [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:02:48 +0000 (15:02 +0300)]
Goto definition works for `S { a: }` case
What happens here is that we lower `: ` to a missing expression, and
then correctly record that the corresponding field expression resolves
to a specific field. Where we fail is in the mapping of syntax to this
missing expression. Doing it via `ast_field.expr()` fails, as that
expression is `None`. Instead, we go in the opposite direcition and ask
each lowered field about its source.
This works, but has wrong complexity `O(N)` and, really, the
implementation is just too complex. We need some better management of
data here.
bors[bot] [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:05:49 +0000 (10:05 +0000)]
Merge #8021 #8022
8021: Enable searching for builtin types r=matklad a=Veykril
Not too sure how useful this is for reference search overall, but for completeness sake it should be there
Also enables document highlighting for them.
8022: some clippy::performance fixes r=matklad a=matthiaskrgr
use vec![] instead of Vec::new() + push()
avoid redundant clones
use chars instead of &str for single char patterns in ends_with() and starts_with()
allocate some Vecs with capacity to avoid unnecessary resizing
Matthias KrĂĽger [Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:15:08 +0000 (10:15 +0100)]
some clippy::performance fixes
use vec![] instead of Vec::new() + push()
avoid redundant clones
use chars instead of &str for single char patterns in ends_with() and starts_with()
allocate some Vecs with capacity to avoid unneccessary resizing
I'm not sure if this is the best way to do this. It will cause false positives for all `include!`d files (though I'm not sure how much IDE functionality we have for these).
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
projects / rust.git / log