4178: Validate the location of `crate` in paths r=matklad a=djrenren
**This solution does not fully handle `use` statements. See below**
This pull requests implements simple validation of usages of the `crate` keyword in `Path`s. Specifically it validates that:
- If a `PathSegment` is starts with the `crate` keyword, it is also the first segment of the `Path`
- All other usages of `crate` in `Path`s are considered errors.
This aligns with `rustc`'s rules. Unlike rustc this implementation does not issue a special error message in the case of `::crate` but it does catch the error.
Furthermore, this change does not cover all error cases. Specifically the following is not caught:
```rust
use foo::{crate}
```
This is because this check is context sensitive. From an AST perspective, `crate` is the root of the `Path`. Only by inspecting the full `UseItem` do we see that it is not in fact the root. This problem becomes worse because `UseTree`s are allowed to be arbitrarily nested:
```rust
use {crate, {{crate, foo::{crate}}}
```
So this is a hard problem to solve without essentially a breadth-first search. In a traditional compiler, I'd say this error is most easily found during the AST -> HIR conversion pass but within rust-analyzer I'm not sure where it belongs.
Under the implementation in this PR, such errors are ignored so we're *more correct* just not *entirely correct*.
Co-authored-by: John Renner <john@jrenner.net>
4134: Special case for empty comments in doc comment kind r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Part of #4103
Fix `ui/empty/empty-comment.rs macros`
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
3998: Make add_function generate functions in other modules via qualified path r=matklad a=TimoFreiberg
Additional feature for #3639
- [x] Add tests for paths with more segments
- [x] Make generating the function in another file work
- [x] Add `pub` or `pub(crate)` to the generated function if it's generated in a different module
- [x] Make the assist jump to the edited file
- [x] Enable file support in the `check_assist` helper
4006: Syntax highlighting for format strings r=matklad a=ltentrup
I have an implementation for syntax highlighting for format string modifiers `{}`.
The first commit refactors the changes in #3826 into a separate struct.
The second commit implements the highlighting: first we check in a macro call whether the macro is a format macro from `std`. In this case, we remember the format string node. If we encounter this node during syntax highlighting, we check for the format modifiers `{}` using regular expressions.
There are a few places which I am not quite sure:
- Is the way I extract the macro names correct?
- Is the `HighlightTag::Attribute` suitable for highlighting the `{}`?
Let me know what you think, any feedback is welcome!
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <ltentrup@users.noreply.github.com>
4038: Group generated ast boilerplate apart from the interesting part r=matklad a=Veetaha
Boilerplate `AstNode` and `From` impls are moved to the end further from the interesting part in `generated.rs`
Co-authored-by: veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
The fix is admittedly quit literally just papering over.
Long-term, I see two more principled approaches:
* we switch to a fully tree-based impl, without parse . to_string
step; with this approach, there shouldn't be any panics. The results
might be nonsensical, but so was the original input.
* we preserve the invariant that re-parsing constructed node is an
identity, and make all the `make_xxx` method return an `Option`.
closes#4044
Detailed changes:
1) Implement a lexer for string literals that divides the string in format specifier `{}` including the format specifier modifier.
2) Adapt syntax highlighting to add ranges for the detected sequences.
3) Add a test case for the format string syntax highlighting.
todo!() "Indicates unfinished code" (https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.todo.html)
Rust documentation provides further clarification:
> The difference between unimplemented! and todo! is that while todo!
> conveys an intent of implementing the functionality later and the
> message is "not yet implemented", unimplemented! makes no such claims.
todo!() seems more appropriate for assists that insert missing impls.
- Adds a new AstElement trait that is implemented by all generated
node, token and enum structs
- Overhauls the code generators to code-generate all tokens, and
also enhances enums to support including tokens, node, and nested
enums
The sytax tree output files now use .rast extension
(rust-analyzer syntax tree or rust abstract syntax tree
(whatever)).
This format has a editors/code/ra_syntax_tree.tmGrammar.json declaration
that supplies nice syntax highlighting for .rast files.
We treat macro calls as expressions (there's appropriate Into impl),
which causes problem if there's expresison and non-expression macro in
the same node (like in the match arm).
We fix this problem by nesting macor patterns into another node (the
same way we nest path into PathExpr or PathPat). Ideally, we probably
should add a similar nesting for macro expressions, but that needs
some careful thinking about macros in blocks: `{ am_i_expression!() }`.
3746: Add create_function assist r=flodiebold a=TimoFreiberg
The function part of #3639, creating methods will come later
- [X] Function arguments
- [X] Function call arguments
- [x] Method call arguments
- [x] Literal arguments
- [x] Variable reference arguments
- [X] Migrate to `ast::make` API
Done, but there are some ugly spots.
Issues to handle in another PR:
- function reference arguments: Their type isn't printed properly right now.
The "insert explicit type" assist has the same issue and this is probably a relatively rare usecase.
- generating proper names for all kinds of argument expressions (if, loop, ...?)
Without this, it's totally possible for the assist to generate invalid argument names.
I think the assist it's already helpful enough to be shipped as it is, at least for me the main usecase involves passing in named references.
Besides, the Rust tooling ecosystem is immature enough that some janky behaviour in a new assist probably won't scare anyone off.
- select the generated placeholder body so it's a bit easier to overwrite it
- create method (`self.foo<|>(..)` or `some_foo.foo<|>(..)`) instead of create_function.
The main difference would be finding (or creating) the impl block and inserting the `self` argument correctly
- more specific default arg names for literals.
So far, every generated argument whose name can't be taken from the call site is called `arg` (with a number suffix if necessary).
- creating functions in another module of the same crate.
E.g. when typing `some_mod::foo<|>(...)` when in `lib.rs`, I'd want to have `foo` generated in `some_mod.rs` and jump there.
Issues: the mod could exist in `some_mod.rs`, in `lib.rs` as `mod some_mod`, or inside another mod but be imported via `use other_mod::some_mod`.
- refer to arguments of the generated function with a qualified path if the types aren't imported yet
(alternative: run autoimport. i think starting with a qualified path is cleaner and there's already an assist to replace a qualified path with an import and an unqualified path)
- add type arguments of the arguments to the generated function
- Autocomplete functions with information from unresolved calls (see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605281323)
Issues: see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605282542. The unresolved call could be anywhere. But just offering this autocompletion for unresolved calls in the same module would already be cool.
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
3814: Add impl From for enum variant assist r=flodiebold a=mattyhall
Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. It was recommended to me on the zulip to maybe try using the trait solver, but I had trouble with that as, although it could resolve the trait impl, it couldn't resolve the variable unambiguously in real use. I'm also unsure of how it would work if there were already multiple From impls to resolve - I can't see a way we could get more than one solution to my query.
Fixes#3766
Co-authored-by: Matthew Hall <matthew@quickbeam.me.uk>
Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. Added
to cover the fairly common case of implementing your own Error that can
be created from another one, although other use cases exist.
This commit changes the parser to attach doc-comments to the corresponding declaration in case there are newlines in between the doc-comment and the declaration.
This introduces the new type -- Semantics.
Semantics maps SyntaxNodes to various semantic info, such as type,
name resolution or macro expansions.
To do so, Semantics maintains a HashMap which maps every node it saw
to the file from which the node originated. This is enough to get all
the necessary hir bits just from syntax.
3026: ra_syntax: reshape SyntaxError for the sake of removing redundancy r=matklad a=Veetaha
Followup of #2911, also puts some crosses to the todo list of #223.
**AHTUNG!** A big part of the diff of this PR are test data files changes.
Simplified `SyntaxError` that was `SyntaxError { kind: { /* big enum */ }, location: Location }` to `SyntaxError(String, TextRange)`. I am not sure whether the tuple struct here is best fit, I am inclined to add names to the fields, because I already provide getters `SyntaxError::message()`, `SyntaxError::range()`.
I also removed `Location` altogether ...
This is currently WIP, because the following is not done:
- [ ] ~~Add tests to `test_data` dir for unescape errors *// I don't know where to put these errors in particular, because they are out of the scope of the lexer and parser. However, I have an idea in mind that we move all validators we have right now to parsing stage, but this is up to discussion...*~~ **[UPD]** I came to a conclusion that tree validation logic, which unescape errors are a part of, should be rethought of, we currently have no tests and no place to put tests for tree validations. So I'd like to extract potential redesign (maybe move of tree validation to ra_parser) and adding tests for this into a separate task.
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <gerzoh1@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
