avoid redundant `.into()` calls to convert T into identical T (`let x: String = String::from("hello").into();`)
use `if let Some(x)` instead of `.is_some()` + `.unwrap()`
don't clone Copy types
remove redundant wrapped ?s: `Some(Some(3)?)` can just be `Some(3)`
use `.map(|x| y)` instead of `and_then(|x| Some(y)` on `Option`s
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.
projects / rust.git / log