fix: remove whitespaces from doctest names
When rustdoc runs doctests, it removes whitespaces from the tests' path ([code](25bb1c13bd/src/librustdoc/doctest.rs (L951))). See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89422 for details.
Interestingly enough, "Run doctest" has been working without much problem even though rust-analyzer hasn't followed the change. This is because cargo passes the test name to rustdoc via `--test-args` option, and then rustdoc [splits it by whitespace](25bb1c13bd/src/librustdoc/config.rs (L513-L514)); the last element of the split test name **always** matches the test name that rustdoc generates.
However, it may run other tests unexpectedly (to be precise, this has long since been a thing because of the split). Consider the following example:
```rust
struct A<T, U>(T, U);
struct B<T, U>(T, U);
/// ```
/// doctest here
/// ```
impl<T, U> A<T, U> {}
/// ```
/// doctest here
/// ```
impl<T, U> B<T, U> {}
```
When you "Run doctest" either of the two, rustdoc considers "U>" one of the test specs and both doctests are run. This patch fixes it by following rustdoc and removing the whitespace from the doctests' name.
internal: Update `xtask promote` and release instructions
Update `xtask` for the subtree workflow. This doesn't explain how to do a `rust -> RA` sync, since that's definitely more involved, but will probably only happen rarely.
internal: Be more explicit when filtering built-in completions
We return every built-in type here, but only have `u32` in the tests, so let's look for that one to make tests more reliable across platforms.
fix: Do completions in path qualifier position
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12566
Not too happy with the duplication needed for this, but it is what it is. Completions in path qualifiers will have to be filtered properly still, but its better to show too many completions for this than too few for now.
fix: Insert spaces when inlining a function defined in a macro.
(partially) fixes#12860.
This PR (only) addresses the whitespace issue when inlining functions defined in macros.
Additionally, the indentation/spacing is not ideal, but works, e.g.
```rs
macro_rules! define_function {
() => { fn test_function_macro() {
if let Some(3) = 3i32.checked_add(0) {
println!("3 + 0 == 3");
}
} };
}
define_function!();
fn main() {
test_function_macro();
}
// previously became
// ...
fn main() {
ifletSome(3)=3i32.checked_add(0){println!("3 + 0 == 3");};
}
// now becomes
// ...
fn main() {
if let Some(3) = 3i32.checked_add(0){
println!("3 + 0 == 3");
};
}
```
The `self` -> `this` problem[^this] is (probably?) a separate problem that I am also looking into.
[^this]: As mentioned in [my comment on the above issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12860#issuecomment-1193231766), inlining a method defined in a macro does not properly replace `self` with the new local `this`.
