Add more methods for resolving definitions from AST to their corresponding HIR types
In order to be able to add these methods with consistent naming I had to also rename two existing methods that would otherwise be conflicting/confusing:
`Semantics::to_module_def(&self, file: FileId) -> Option<Module>` (before)
`Semantics::file_to_module_def(&self, file: FileId) -> Option<Module>` (after)
`Semantics::to_module_defs(&self, file: FileId) -> impl Iterator<Item = Module>` (before)
`Semantics::file_to_module_defs(&self, file: FileId) -> impl Iterator<Item = Module>` (after)
(the PR is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to walk a `hir::Function`'s AST, resolving its exprs/stmts/items to their HIR equivalents)
fix: use 4 spaces for indentation in macro expansion
Partial fix for #16471.
In the previous code, the indentation produced by macro expansion was set to 2 spaces. This PR modifies it to 4 spaces for the sake of consistency.
test: include `rename_path_inside_use_tree`.
Keeps tracks the progress of the changes. 3 other tests broke with the changes
of this.
feat: rename all other usages within the current file.
feat: fix most of the implementation problems.
test: `rename_path_inside_use_tree` tests a more complicated scenario.
Previously, the documentation field was the same as the text shown to
users when they hover over that symbol. The documentation should
really just be the doc comment, and as of #16179 the signature is
already stored in the signatureDocumentation field.
Abstract more over ItemTreeLoc-like structs
Allows reducing some code duplication by using functions generic over said structs. The diff isn't negative due to me adding some additional impls for completeness.
This commit also adds `tracing` to NotificationDispatcher/RequestDispatcher,
bumps `rust-analyzer-salsa` to 0.17.0-pre.6, `always-assert` to 0.2, and
removes the homegrown `hprof` implementation in favor of a vendored
tracing-span-tree.
feat: Support for GOTO def from *inside* files included with include! macro
close#14937
Try to implement goto def from *inside* files included with include! macro.
This implementation has two limitations:
1. Only **one** file which calls include! will be tracked. (I think multiple file be included is a rare case and we may let it go for now)
2. Mapping token from included file to macro call file (semantics.rs:646~658) works fine but I am not sure is this the correct way to implement.
Expand lint tables && make clippy happy 🎉
This PR expands the lint tables on `./Cargo.toml` and thereby makes `cargo clippy` exit successfully! 🎉Fixes#15918
## How?
In the beginning there are some warnings for rustc.
Next, and most importantly, there is the clippy lint table. There are a few sections in there.
First there are the lint groups.
Second there are all lints which are permanently allowed with the reasoning why they are allowed.
Third there is a huge list of temporarily allowed lints. They should be removed in the mid-term, but incur a substantial amount of work, therefore they are allowed for now and can be worked on bit by bit.
Fourth there are all lints which should warn.
Additionally there are a few allow statements in the code for lints which should be permanently allowed in this specific place, but not in the whole code base.
## Follow up work
- [ ] Run clippy in CI
- [ ] Remove tidy test (at least `@Veykril` wrote this in #15017)
- [ ] Work on temporarily allowed lints
`cargo clippy --fix`
This PR is the result of running `cargo clippy --fix && cargo fmt` in the root of the repository. I did not manually review all the changes, but just skimmed through a few of them. The tests still pass, so it seems fine.
Add a new config to allow renaming of non-local defs
With #15656 we started disallowing renaming of non-local items. Although this makes sense there are some false positives that impacted users' workflows. So this config aims to mitigate this by giving users the liberty to disable this feature.
The reason why this is a draft is that I saw one of the tests fail and I am not sure if the "got" result even syntactically makes sense
Test case is :
```rust
check(
"Baz",
r#"
//- /lib.rs crate:lib new_source_root:library
pub struct S;
//- /main.rs crate:main deps:lib new_source_root:local
use lib::S$0;
"#,
"use lib::Baz;"
);
```
```
Left:
use lib::Baz;
Right:
use lib::Baz;Baz
Diff:
use lib::Baz;Baz
```
The first one succeeds because the functionality is already implemented.
The second one fails and represents the functionality to be implemented
in this PR.
