Previously the detected cargo is the global one, as it uses the
directory of the rust source which doesn't pick up the local override
This fixes the case in clippy where the local rust toolchain is a recent
nightly that has a 2021 edition Cargo.toml. The global (stable) cargo
returns an error attempting to parse it
Fixes#10445
10503: Only include targets of packages that are workspace members r=Veykril a=bcully
CargoWorkspace's package list includes packages that are path
dependencies, even if those packages aren't actually members of the
cargo workspace. As a result, rust-analyzer's runnable finder, which
returns the target from the first workspace that has a matching package,
may select the wrong working directory, causing runnables to fail, e.g.,
```
error: package `root` cannot be tested because it requires dev-dependencies and is not a member of the workspace
```
To fix this, we filter out packages that aren't members of the workspace
when searching for targets.
Fixes#7764
Co-authored-by: Brendan Cully <brendan@cully.org>
CargoWorkspace's package list includes packages that are path
dependencies, even if those packages aren't actually members of the
cargo workspace. As a result, rust-analyzer's runnable finder, which
returns the target from the first workspace that has a matching package,
may select the wrong working directory, causing runnables to fail, e.g.,
```
error: package `root` cannot be tested because it requires dev-dependencies and is not a member of the workspace
```
To fix this, we filter out packages that aren't members of the workspace
when searching for targets.
Fixes#7764
10005: Extend `CargoConfig.unset_test_crates` r=matklad a=regexident
This is to allow for efficiently disabling `#[cfg(test)]` on all crates (by passing `unset_test_crates: UnsetTestCrates::All`) without having to first load the crate graph, when using rust-analyzer as a library.
(FYI: The change doesn't seem to be covered by any existing tests.)
Co-authored-by: Vincent Esche <regexident@gmail.com>
I don't think there's anything wrong with project_model depending on
proc_macro_api directly -- fundamentally, both are about gluing our pure
data model to the messy outside world.
However, it's easy enough to avoid the dependency, so why not.
As an additional consideration, `proc_macro_api` now pulls in `base_db`.
project_model should definitely not depend on that!
Our project model code is rather complicated -- the logic for lowering
from `cargo metadata` to `CrateGraph` is fiddly and special-case. So
far, we survived without testing this at all, but this increasingly
seems like a poor option.
So this PR introduces a simple tests just to detect the most obvious
failures. The idea here is that, although we rely on external processes
(cargo & rustc), we are actually using their stable interfaces, so we
might just mock out the outputs.
Long term, I would like to try to virtualize IO here, so as to do such
mocking in a more principled way, but lets start simple.
Should we forgo the mocking and just call `cargo metadata` directly
perhaps? Touch question -- I personally feel that fast, in-process tests
are more important in this case than any extra assurance we get from
running the real thing.
Super-long term, we would probably want to extend our heavy tests to
cover more use-cases, but we should figure a way to do that without
slowing the tests down for everyone.
Perhaps we need two-tiered bors system, where we pull from `master` into
`release` branch only when an additional set of tests passes?
The completion of cfg will look at the enabled cfg keys when
performing completion.
It will also look crate features when completing a feature cfg
option. A fixed list of known values for some cfg options are
provided.
For unknown keys it will look at the enabled values for that cfg key,
which means that completion will only show enabled options for those.
9227: Add a config setting to disable the 'test' cfg in specified crates r=matklad a=lf-
If you are opening libcore from rust-lang/rust as opposed to e.g.
goto definition from some other crate which would use the sysroot
instance of libcore, a `#![cfg(not(test))]` would previously have made
all the code excluded from the module tree, breaking the editor
experience.
Core does not need to ever be edited with `#[cfg(test)]` enabled,
as the tests are in another crate.
This PR puts in a slight hack that checks for the crate name "core" and
turns off `#[cfg(test)]` for that crate.
Fixes#9203Fixes#9226
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
If you are opening libcore from rust-lang/rust as opposed to e.g.
goto definition from some other crate which would use the sysroot
instance of libcore, a `#![cfg(not(test))]` would previously have made
all the code excluded from the module tree, breaking the editor
experience.
This puts in a slight hack that checks for the crate name "core" and
turns off `#[cfg(test)]`.
