3543: Parameter inlay hint separate from variable type inlay? #2876 r=matklad a=slyngbaek
Add setting to allow enabling either type inlay hints or parameter
inlay hints or both. Group the the max inlay hint length option
into the object.
- Add a new type for the inlayHint options.
- Add tests to ensure the inlays don't happen on the server side
Co-authored-by: Steffen Lyngbaek <steffenlyngbaek@gmail.com>
- Instead of a single object type, use several individual nested types
to allow toggling from the settings GUI
- Remove unused struct definitions
- Install and test that the toggles work
3549: Implement env! macro r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR implements `env!` macro by adding following things:
1. Added `additional_outdirs` settings in vscode. (naming to be bikeshed)
2. Added `ExternSourceId` which is a wrapping for SourceRootId but only used in extern sources. It is because `OUT_DIR` is not belonged to any crate and we have to access it behind an `AstDatabase`.
3. This PR does not implement the `OUT_DIR` parsing from `cargo check`. I don't have general design about this, @kiljacken could we reuse some cargo watch code for that ?
~~Block on [#3536]~~
PS: After this PR , we (kind of) completed the `include!(concat!(env!('OUT_DIR'), "foo.rs")` macro call combo. [Exodia Obliterate!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqNH3FoGi0)
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
3542: Renames work on struct field shorthands r=matklad a=m-n
When renaming either a local or a struct field, struct field shorthands are now renamed correctly.
Happy to refactor this if it doesn't fit the design of the code. Thanks for adding the suggestion of where to start on the issue.
I wasn't sure if I should also look at the behavior of renaming when placing the cursor at the field shorthand; the following describes the behavior with this patch:
```rust
#[test]
fn test_rename_field_shorthand_for_unspecified() {
// when renaming a shorthand, should we have a way to specify
// between renaming the field and the local?
//
// If not is this the correct default?
test_rename(
r#"
struct Foo {
i: i32,
}
impl Foo {
fn new(i: i32) -> Self {
Self { i<|> }
}
}
"#,
"j",
r#"
struct Foo {
i: i32,
}
impl Foo {
fn new(j: i32) -> Self {
Self { i: j }
}
}
"#,
);
}
```
Resolves#3431
Co-authored-by: Matt Niemeir <matt.niemeir@gmail.com>
- Updated naming of config
- Define struct in ra_ide and use remote derive in rust-analyzer/config
- Make inlayConfig type more flexible to support more future types
- Remove constructor only used in tests
Add setting to allow enabling either type inlay hints or parameter
inlay hints or both. Group the the max inlay hint length option
into the object.
- Add a new type for the inlayHint options.
- Add tests to ensure the inlays don't happen on the server side
To test whether the receiver type matches for the impl, we unify the given self
type (in this case `HashSet<{unknown}>`) with the self type of the
impl (`HashSet<?0>`), but if the given self type contains Unknowns, they won't
be unified with the variables in those places. So we got a receiver type that
was different from the expected one, and concluded the impl doesn't match.
The fix is slightly hacky; if after the unification, our variables are still
there, we make them fall back to Unknown. This does make some sense though,
since we don't want to 'leak' the variables.
Fixes#3547.
3513: Completion in macros r=matklad a=flodiebold
I experimented a bit with completion in macros. It's kind of working, but there are a lot of rough edges.
- I'm trying to expand the macro call with the inserted fake token. This requires some hacky additions on the HIR level to be able to do "hypothetical" expansions. There should probably be a nicer API for this, if we want to do it this way. I'm not sure whether it's worth it, because we still can't do a lot if the original macro call didn't expand in nearly the same way. E.g. if we have something like `println!("", x<|>)` the expansions will look the same and everything is fine; but in that case we could maybe have achieved the same result in a simpler way. If we have something like `m!(<|>)` where `m!()` doesn't even expand or expands to something very different, we don't really know what to do anyway.
- Relatedly, there are a lot of cases where this doesn't work because either the original call or the hypothetical call doesn't expand. E.g. if we have `m!(x.<|>)` the original token tree doesn't parse as an expression; if we have `m!(match x { <|> })` the hypothetical token tree doesn't parse. It would be nice if we could have better error recovery in these cases.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
3516: Handle visibility in more cases in completion r=matklad a=flodiebold
This means we don't show private items when completing paths or method calls.
We might want to show private items if we can edit their definition and provide a "make public" assist, but I feel like we'd need better sorting of completion items for that, so they can be not shown or sorted to the bottom by default. Until then, they're usually more of a distraction to me.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
Allow trait autocompletions for unimplemented associated fn's, types,
and consts without using explicit keywords before hand (fn, type,
const).
The sequel to #3108.
Note that `detail` was replced with `function_signature` to avoid
calling `from` on FunctionSignature twice.
I didn't add new tests because the current ones seem enough.
3384: fix#2377 super::super::* r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
Thanks @matklad for the detailed explanation on #2377. I believe this fixes it.
One thing I'm not sure about is you said the fix would involve changing `crates/ra_hir_def/src/path/lower/lower.rs`, but I only changed `crates/ra_hir_def/src/path/lower/lower_use.rs`. I'm not sure what kind of test code I'd have to write to expose the issue in `lower.rs`, but I'd be happy to add it if you are able to provide additional guidance.
closes#2377
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
3366: Simpilfy original_range logic r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR fixed another [bug](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/3000#issuecomment-592474844) which incorrectly map the wrong range of `punct` in macro_call and simplify the logic a little bit by introducing an `ascend_call_token` function.
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <edwin0cheng@gmail.com>
