This removes all markdown when the client does not support the markdown MarkupKind
Otherwise the output on the editor will have some markdown boilerplate, making it less readable
This seems like a better factoring logically; ideally, clients shouldn't touch
`set_` methods of the database directly. Additionally, I think this
should remove the unfortunate duplication in fixture code.
6055: Add ok postfix completion r=matklad a=mullr
Wrapping values in `Ok(...)` is so pervasive that it seems reasonable for it to
have its own postfix completion.
Co-authored-by: Russell Mull <russell.mull@gmail.com>
5846: Add references to fn args during completion r=matklad a=adamrk
When completing a function call, if there is an argument taken as a ref or mut ref which matches the name and type of a variable in scope, we will insert a `&` or `&mut` when filling in the function arguments. This addresses https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5449.
E.g.
```rust
fn foo(x: &i32) {}
fn main() {
let x = 5;
foo # completing foo here generates `foo(&x)` now instead of `foo(x)`
}
```
Co-authored-by: adamrk <ark.email@gmail.com>
5976: Complete trait impl immediately after type/const/fn r=jonas-schievink a=oxalica
Currently, we can complete type/const/fn but only if we typed an identifier.
That is, `impl .. { fn f<|> }` has completions with all trait fn including `f`, but `impl .. { fn <|> }` doesn't provide any suggestion (even if explicit trigger it).
This PR tweak the logic of completion match to make it possible.
However, we still need to explicit trigger suggestions (`Control + Space` by default) in vscode to show. Not sure if we can make it automatically triggered after typing the space after `fn`.
Another question is that I cannot figure out why `BLOCK_EXPR` need to be checked. A block expr directly inside a impl block should be invalid, and nested items will failed to locate impl block in specific offset and skip the suggestion. Now I simply removed it and no tests are broken.
4f91478e50/crates/ide/src/completion/complete_trait_impl.rs (L109)
Co-authored-by: oxalica <oxalicc@pm.me>
5985: Make MergeBehaviour configurable r=jonas-schievink a=Veykril
This should make the newly implemented `MergeBehaviour` for import insertion configurable as roughly outlined in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/5935#issuecomment-685834257. For the config name and the like I just picked what came to mind so that might be up for bikeshedding.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
5971: Implement async blocks r=flodiebold a=oxalica
Fix#4018
@flodiebold already gave a generic guide in the issue. Here's some concern about implementation detail:
- Chalk doesn't support generator type yet.
- Adding generator type as a brand new type (ctor) can be complex and need to *re-introduced* builtin impls. (Like how we implement closures before native closure support of chalk, which is already removed in #5401 )
- The output type of async block should be known after type inference of the whole body.
- We cannot directly get the type from source like return-positon-impl-trait. But we still need to provide trait bounds when chalk asking for `opaque_ty_data`.
- During the inference, the output type of async block can be temporary unknown and participate the later inference.
`let a = async { None }; let _: i32 = a.await.unwrap();`
So in this PR, the type of async blocks is inferred as an opaque type parameterized by the `Future::Output` type it should be, like what we do with closure type.
And it really works now.
Well, I still have some questions:
- The bounds `AsyncBlockImplType<T>: Future<Output = T>` is currently generated in `opaque_ty_data`. I'm not sure if we should put this code here.
- Type of async block is now rendered as `impl Future<Output = OutputType>`. Do we need to special display to hint that it's a async block? Note that closure type has its special format, instead of `impl Fn(..) -> ..` or function type.
Co-authored-by: oxalica <oxalicc@pm.me>
