7162: Introduce queries to avoid problems when performing completion for enums with many variants r=matklad a=danielframpton
This change introduces two new queries to compute:
1) attributes for all variants of an enum, and
2) attributes for all fields of a variant.
The purpose of this change is to avoid the current n^2 behavior when rendering completion for variants (which prevents completion for enums with large numbers of variants).
Co-authored-by: Daniel Frampton <Daniel.Frampton@microsoft.com>
1) the set of attributes for all variants of an enum, and
2) the set of attributes for all fields of a variant.
This avoids the current n^2 behavior when rendering completion for variants, which
prevents completion for enums with large numbers of variants.
7160: Get `hir::Function` return type r=flodiebold a=arnaudgolfouse
Hello !
As said in #7158, I noticed that `hir::Function` has no direct way of getting the return type, so this PR adds this functionality.
Co-authored-by: Arnaud <arnaud.golfouse@free.fr>
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?
CC @davidlattimore
Co-authored-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn@traverseresearch.nl>
This is done by adding a `ret_type` method to `hir::Function`.
I followed `assoc_fn_params` convention by creating a new `RetType` type,
that contains the actual return type accessible via a `ty` method.
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 😁). 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:
3ae1649c24/crates/ssr/src/tests.rs (L178-L184)
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:
3ae1649c24/crates/ssr/src/tests.rs (L201-L214)
A possible MVP of this PR might be to drop this optional `;' handling entirely and only allow an SSR pattern/template with semicolons on either side.
Co-authored-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn@traverseresearch.nl>
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.
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.
Co-authored-by: Phil Ellison <phil.j.ellison@gmail.com>
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>
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
fixe #6890 and #6788
r? @jonas-schievink
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
7130: Add extract_assignment assist r=Jesse-Bakker a=Jesse-Bakker
Add extract-assignment assist (#7006).
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.
Co-authored-by: Jesse Bakker <github@jessebakker.com>
