6599: Add attribute highlight modifier to all tokens inside attributes r=matklad a=Veykril
This has the side effect that we also emit `attribute.attribute` highlights now, as in, the tokens that get the attribute semantic type also get the attribute modifier. I personally don't think it's really a problem but maybe it is to some? It's just that it was really simple to implement it this way, which is why I just went this route for now.
Fixes#6536
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
6601: add let and letm postfix to turn expressions into variables r=matklad a=bnjjj
Partially resolve#6426
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <5719034+bnjjj@users.noreply.github.com>
6670: Allow renaming between self and first param with owned parameters r=matklad a=Veykril
This fixes renaming owned SelfParams turning the parameter into a reference, as in, for a type `Foo`, `fn foo(self) {}` became `fn foo(renamed_name: &Foo) {}` prior to this.
Similarly for the other way around, we now support renaming non-ref parameters to `self`. Additionally we do more checks now than before. We check:
- that the function has an impl block
- that we are renaming the first parameter(prior we ignored which parameter was renamed and always picked the first nevertheless)
- that the parameter's type aligns with the impl block(minus one level of reference abstraction to account for `&self`/`&mut self`)
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
6666: Support 'go to definition' for self r=jonas-schievink a=Veykril
Also reverts #6660, instead of showing the type it now works like it does for names by returning the declaration we are already on. This for example enables VSCode to show all references(#6665) when executing `go to definition` on the declaration.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
6664: Show type of self param on hover r=jonas-schievink a=Veykril
Show the type of `self` when hovering the token in a `SelfParam`.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
6645: Publish diagnostics for macro expansion errors r=matklad a=jonas-schievink
This adds 2 new diagnostics, emitted during name resolution:
* `unresolved-proc-macro`, a weak warning that is emitted when a proc macro is supposed to be expanded, but was not provided by the build system. This usually means that proc macro support is turned off, but may also indicate setup issues when using rust-project.json. Being a weak warning, this should help set expectations when users see it, while not being too obstructive. We do not yet emit this for attribute macros though, just custom derives and `!` macros.
* `macro-error`, which is emitted when any macro (procedural or `macro_rules!`) fails to expand due to some error. This is an error-level diagnostic, but currently still marked as experimental, because there might be spurious errors and this hasn't been tested too well.
This does not yet emit diagnostics when expansion in item bodies fails, just for module-level macros.
Known bug: The "proc macro not found" diagnostic points at the whole item for custom derives, it should just point at the macro's name in the `#[derive]` list, but I haven't found an easy way to do that.
Screenshots:
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
6650: Make completion and assists module independent r=matklad a=SomeoneToIgnore
A follow-up of https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/6553#discussion_r524402907
Move the common code for both assists and completion modules into a separate crate.
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
6651: Profile completions better r=SomeoneToIgnore a=SomeoneToIgnore
During https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/6612 investigation, had added a few more profiling points and considered that they can be useful later, ergo the PR.
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <mail4score@gmail.com>
6586: Don't call a closure a function in the infer_function_return_type assist label r=lnicola a=Veykril
`Add this function's return type` becomes `Add this closure's return type` for closures. This makes it more obvious that we are indeed planning on modifying the closure and not its containing function.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
