fix: Fix resolution of label inside macro
When working on Something Else (TM) (I left a hint in the commits :P), I noticed to my surprise that labels inside macros are not resolved. This led to a discovery of *two* unrelated bugs, which are hereby fixed in two commits.
This will mean users opting to not activate `cfg(test)` will lose IDE experience on them, which is quite unfortunate, but this is unavoidable if we want to avoid false positives on e.g. diagnostics. The real fix is to provide IDE experience even for cfg'ed out code, but this is out of scope for this PR.
fix: Fix name resolution when an import is resolved to some namespace and then later in the algorithm another namespace is added
The import is flagged as "indeterminate", and previously it was re-resolved, but only at the end of name resolution, when it's already too late for anything that depends on it.
This issue was tried to fix in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/2466, but it was not fixed fully.
That PR is also why IDE features did work: the import at the end was resolved correctly, so IDE features that re-resolved the macro path resolved it correctly.
I was concerned about the performance of this, but this doesn't seem to regress `analysis-stats .`, so I guess it's fine to land this. I have no idea about the incremental perf however and I don't know how to measure that, although when typing in `zbus` (including creating a new function, which should recompute the def map) completion was fast enough.
I didn't check what rustc does, so maybe it does something more performant, like keeping track of only possibly problematic imports.
Fixes#18138.
Probably fixes#17630.
The import is flagged as "indeterminate", and previously it was re-resolved, but only at the end of name resolution, when it's already too late for anything that depends on it.
This issue was tried to fix in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/2466, but it was not fixed fully.
feat: Support the `${concat(...)}` metavariable expression
I didn't follow rustc precisely, because I think it does some things wrongly (or they are FIXME), but I only allowed more code, not less. So we're all fine.
Closes#18145.
I didn't follow rustc precisely, because I think it does some things wrongly (or they are FIXME), but I only allowed more code, not less. So we're all fine.
Use more correct handling of lint attributes
The previous analysis was top-down, and worked on a single file (expanding macros). The new analysis is bottom-up, starting from the diagnostics and climbing up the syntax and module tree.
While this is more efficient (and in fact, efficiency was the motivating reason to work on this), unfortunately the code was already fast enough. But luckily, it also fixes a correctness problem: outline parent modules' attributes were not respected for the previous analysis. Case lints specifically did their own analysis to accommodate that, but it was limited to only them. The new analysis works on all kinds of lints, present and future.
It was basically impossible to fix the old analysis without rewriting it because navigating the module hierarchy must come bottom-up, and if we already have a bottom-up analysis (including syntax analysis because modules can be nested in other syntax elements, including macros), it makes sense to use only this kind of analysis.
Few other bugs (not fundamental to the previous analysis) are also fixed, e.g. overwriting of lint levels (i.e. `#[allow(lint)] mod foo { #[warn(lint)] mod bar; }`.
After this PR is merged I intend to work on an editor command that does workspace-wide diagnostics analysis (that is, `rust-analyzer diagnostics` but from your editor and without having to spawn a new process, which will have to analyze the workspace from scratch). This can be useful to users who do not want to enable check on save because of its overhead, but want to see workspace wide diagnostics from r-a (or to maintainers of rust-analyzer).
Closes#18086.
Closes#18081.
Fixes#18056.
The previous analysis was top-down, and worked on a single file (expanding macros). The new analysis is bottom-up, starting from the diagnostics and climbing up the syntax and module tree.
While this is more efficient (and in fact, efficiency was the motivating reason to work on this), unfortunately the code was already fast enough. But luckily, it also fixes a correctness problem: outline parent modules' attributes were not respected for the previous analysis. Case lints specifically did their own analysis to accommodate that, but it was limited to only them. The new analysis works on all kinds of lints, present and future.
It was basically impossible to fix the old analysis without rewriting it because navigating the module hierarchy must come bottom-up, and if we already have a bottom-up analysis (including syntax analysis because modules can be nested in other syntax elements, including macros), it makes sense to use only this kind of analysis.
Few other bugs (not fundamental ti the previous analysis) are also fixed, e.g. overwriting of lint levels (i.e. `#[allow(lint)] mod foo { #[warn(lint)] mod bar; }`.
feat: render patterns in params for hovering
Fix#17858
This PR introduces an option to [hir-def/src/body/pretty.rs](08c7bbc2db/crates/hir-def/src/body/pretty.rs) to render the result as a single line, which is then reused for rendering patterns in parameters for hovering.
This is a small change, but it was the cause of 90% of the errors in `rust-analyzer diagnostics .` 🫢
With this change and #18085 together, all remaining errors are type errors.
This may mean we can enable more errors, but this is out of scope for this PR.
fix: Properly account for editions in names
This PR touches a lot of parts. But the main changes are changing `hir_expand::Name` to be raw edition-dependently and only when necessary (unrelated to how the user originally wrote the identifier), and changing `is_keyword()` and `is_raw_identifier()` to be edition-aware (this was done in #17896, but the FIXMEs were fixed here).
It is possible that I missed some cases, but most IDE parts should properly escape (or not escape) identifiers now.
The rules of thumb are:
- If we show the identifier to the user, its rawness should be determined by the edition of the edited crate. This is nice for IDE features, but really important for changes we insert to the source code.
- For tests, I chose `Edition::CURRENT` (so we only have to (maybe) update tests when an edition becomes stable, to avoid churn).
- For debugging tools (helper methods and logs), I used `Edition::LATEST`.
Reviewing notes:
This is a really big PR but most of it is mechanical translation. I changed `Name` displayers to require an edition, and followed the compiler errors. Most methods just propagate the edition requirement. The interesting cases are mostly in `ide-assists`, as sometimes the correct crate to fetch the edition from requires awareness (there may be two). `ide-completions` and `ide-diagnostics` were solved pretty easily by introducing an edition field to their context. `ide` contains many features, for most of them it was propagated to the top level function and there the edition was fetched based on the file.
I also fixed all FIXMEs from #17896. Some required introducing an edition parameter (usually not for many methods after the changes to `Name`), some were changed to a new method `is_any_identifier()` because they really want any possible keyword.
Fixes#17895.
Fixes#17774.
This PR touches a lot of parts. But the main changes are changing
`hir_expand::Name` to be raw edition-dependently and only when necessary
(unrelated to how the user originally wrote the identifier),
and changing `is_keyword()` and `is_raw_identifier()` to be edition-aware
(this was done in #17896, but the FIXMEs were fixed here).
It is possible that I missed some cases, but most IDE parts should properly
escape (or not escape) identifiers now.
The rules of thumb are:
- If we show the identifier to the user, its rawness should be determined
by the edition of the edited crate. This is nice for IDE features,
but really important for changes we insert to the source code.
- For tests, I chose `Edition::CURRENT` (so we only have to (maybe) update
tests when an edition becomes stable, to avoid churn).
- For debugging tools (helper methods and logs), I used `Edition::LATEST`.
internal: Replace once_cell with std's recently stabilized OnceCell/Lock and LazyCell/Lock
This doesn't get rid of the once_cell dependency, unfortunately, since we have dependencies that use it, but it's a nice to do cleanup. And when our deps will eventually get rid of once_cell we will get rid of it for free.
This doesn't get rid of the once_cell dependency, unfortunately, since we have dependencies that use it, but it's a nice to do cleanup. And when our deps will eventually get rid of once_cell we will get rid of it for free.
fix: Resolve included files to their calling modules in IDE layer
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/17390 at the expense of reporting duplicate diagnostics for modules that have includes in them when both the calling and called file are included.
Reuse recursion limit as expansion limit
A configurable recursion limit was introduced by looking at the recursion_limit crate attribute. Instead of relying on a global constant we will reuse this value for expansion limit as well.
Addresses: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/8640#issuecomment-2271740272
feat: Implement TAIT and fix ATPIT a bit
Closes#16296 (Commented on the issue)
In #16852, I implemented ATPIT, but as I didn't discern ATPIT and other non-assoc TAIT, I guess that it has been working for some TAITs.
As the definining usage of TAIT requires it should be appear in the Def body's type(const blocks' type annotations or functions' signatures), this can be done in simlilar way with ATPIT
And this PR also corrects some defining-usage resolution for ATPIT
A configurable recursion limit was introduced by looking at the
recursion_limit crate attribute. Instead of relying on a global constant
we will reuse this value for expansion limit as well.
feat: Use spans for builtin and declarative macro expansion errors
This should generally improve some error reporting for macro expansion errors. Especially for `compile_error!` within proc-macros
feat: add preliminary support for `+ use<..>` `precise_capturing` syntax
## Summary
This PR adds basic support for the following syntax.
```rs
fn captures<'a: 'a, 'b: 'b, T>() -> impl Sized + use<'b, T> {}
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// This opaque type does not capture `'a`.
fn outlives<'o, T: 'o>(_: T) {}
fn caller<'o, 'a, 'b: 'o, T: 'o>() {
// ~~
// ^ Note that we don't need `'a: 'o`.
outlives::<'o>(captures::<'a, 'b, T>());
}
```
Related to #17598
LRU `body_with_source_map` query
This query is being invalidated all the time anyways (we have an extra query on top of it for the body incrementality that is not source dependent), so there is little reason to keep these around all the time when only some IDE features are interested in them.
Prefer standard library paths over shorter extern deps re-exports
This should generally speed up path finding for std items as we no longer bother looking through all external dependencies. It also makes more sense to prefer importing std items from the std dependencies directly.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/17540
Fix path resolution for child mods of those expanded by `include!`
Child modules wouldn't use the correct candidate paths due to a branch that doesn't seem to be doing what it's intended to do. Removing the branch fixes the problem and all existing test cases pass.
Having no knowledge of how any of this works, I believe this fixes#17645. Using another test that writes the included mod directly into `lib.rs` instead, I found the difference can be traced to the candidate files we use to look up mods. A separate branch for if the file comes from an `include!` macro doesn't take into account the original mod we're contained within:
```rust
None if file_id.macro_file().map_or(false, |it| it.is_include_macro(db.upcast())) => {
candidate_files.push(format!("{}.rs", name.display(db.upcast())));
candidate_files.push(format!("{}/mod.rs", name.display(db.upcast())));
}
```
I'm not sure why this branch exists. Tracing the branch back takes us to 3bb9efb but it doesn't say *why* the branch was added. The test case that was added in this commit passes with the branch removed, so I think it's just superfluous at this point.
Child modules wouldn't use the correct candidate paths due to a branch that doesn't seem to be doing what it's intended to do. Removing the branch fixes the problem and all existing test cases pass.
