Co-authored-by: Luiz Carlos Mourão Paes de Carvalho <luizcarlosmpc@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Luiz Carlos <luizcarlosmpc@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
I was working on extending #3954 to apply completion scores in more places (I'll have another PR open for that soon) when I discovered that actually completion sorting was not working for me at all in `coc.nvim`. This led me down a bit of a rabbit hole of how coc and vs code each sort completion items.
Before this PR, rust-analyzer was setting the `sortText` field on completion items to `None` if we hadn't applied any completion score for that item, or to the label of the item with a leading whitespace character if we had applied any completion score. Completion score is defined in rust-analyzer as an enum with two variants, `TypeMatch` and `TypeAndNameMatch`.
In vs code the above strategy works, because if `sortText` isn't set [they default it to the label](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commit/b4ead4ed665e1ce2e58d8329c682f78da2d4e89d). However, coc [does not do this](https://github.com/neoclide/coc.nvim/blob/e211e361475a38b146a903b9b02343551c6cd372/src/completion/complete.ts#L245).
I was going to file a bug report against coc, but I read the [LSP spec for the `sortText` field](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-current/#textDocument_completion) and I feel like it is ambiguous and coc could claim what they do is a valid interpretation of the spec.
Further, the existing rust-analyzer behavior of prepending a leading whitespace character for completion items with any completion score does not handle sorting `TypeAndNameMatch` completions above `TypeMatch` completions. They were both being treated the same.
The first change this PR makes is to set the `sortText` field to either "1" for `TypeAndNameMatch` completions, "2" for `TypeMatch` completions, or "3" for completions which are neither of those. This change works around the potential ambiguity in the LSP spec and fixes completion sorting for users of coc. It also allows `TypeAndNameMatch` items to be sorted above just `TypeMatch` items (of course both of these will be sorted above completion items without a score).
The second change this PR makes is to use the actual completion scores for ref matches. The existing code ignored the actual score and always assumed these would be a high priority completion item.
#### Before
Here coc just sorts based on how close the items are in the file.
bors[bot] [Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:06:11 +0000 (17:06 +0000)]
Merge #7961
7961: add user docs for ssr assist r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
@matklad
This is a small follow up on #7874, adding user docs for the SSR assist functionality. Since most other assists aren't handled this way I wasn't sure exactly how we wanted to document this, so feel free to suggest alternatives.
bors[bot] [Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:34:59 +0000 (14:34 +0000)]
Merge #7874
7874: add apply ssr assist r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
This PR adds an `Apply SSR` assist which was briefly mentioned in #3186. It allows writing an ssr rule as a comment, and then applying that SSR via an assist. This workflow is much nicer than the default available via `coc-rust-analyzer` when iterating to find the proper replacement.
As currently implemented, this requires the ssr rule is written as a single line in the comment, and it doesn't require any kind of prefix. Anything which properly parses as a ssr rule will enable the assist. The benefit of requiring the ssr rule be on a single line is it allows for a workflow where the user has several rules written one after the other, possibly to be triggered in order, without having to try to parse multiple lines of text and determine where one rule ends and the next begins. The benefit of not requiring a prefix is less typing :laughing: - plus, I think the chance of something accidentally parsing as an ssr rule is minimal.
I think a reasonable extension of this would be to allow either any ssr rule that fits on a single line, or any comment block which in its entirety makes up a single ssr rule (parsing a comment block containing multiple ssr rules and running them all would break the use case that currently works where a user writes multiple ssr rules then runs them each one by one in arbitrary order).
I've marked this as a draft because for some reason I am strugging to make the unit tests pass. It does work when I compile rust-analyzer and test it in my editor though, so I'm not sure what is going on.
bors[bot] [Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:57:04 +0000 (20:57 +0000)]
Merge #6822
6822: Read version of rustc that compiled proc macro r=edwin0cheng a=jsomedon
Signed-off-by: Jay Somedon <jay.somedon@outlook.com>
This PR is to fix #6174.
I basically
* added two methods, `read_version` and `read_section`(used by `read_version`)
* two new crates `snap` and `object` to be used by those two methods
I just noticed that some part of code were auto-reformatted by rust-analyzer on file save. Does it matter?
Co-authored-by: Jay Somedon <jay.somedon@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
Since block expressions containing items now have a `ModuleId`, there's no need to also treat `DefWithBodyId` as a potential item container. Since https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7878, only the `ModuleId` variant of `ContainerId` was ever created, so just delete the thing and use `ModuleId` everywhere.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
Instead of storing an `ItemScope` filled with inner items, we store the list of `BlockId`s for all block expressions that are part of a `Body`. Code can then query the `block_def_map` for those.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonas.schievink@ferrous-systems.com>
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.
bors[bot] [Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:51:04 +0000 (22:51 +0000)]
Merge #7898
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
}
// 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.