This partially reverts #17350, based on the feedback in #17397.
If we don't have an autofix, it's more annoying to highlight the whole line.
This heuristic fixes the diagnostic overwhelming the user during startup.
Currently, rust-analyzer highlights the entire region when a `cfg` is
inactive (e.g. `#[cfg(windows)]` on a Linux machine). However,
unlinked files only highlight the first three characters of the file.
This was introduced in #8444, but users have repeatedly found
themselves with no rust-analyzer support for a file and unsure
why (see e.g. #13226 and the intentionally prominent pop-up added in
PR #14366).
(Anecdotally, we see this issue bite our users regularly, particularly
people new to Rust.)
Instead, highlight the entire inactive file, but mark it as all as
unused. This allows users to hover and run the quickfix from any line.
Whilst this is marginally more prominent, it's less invasive than a
pop-up, and users do want to know why they're getting no rust-analyzer
support in certain files.
Don't mark `#[rustc_deprecated_safe_2024]` functions as unsafe
`std::env::set_var` will be unsafe in edition 2024, but not before it. I couldn't quite figure out how to check for the span properly, so for now we just turn the false positives into false negatives, which are less bad.
`std::env::set_var` will be unsafe in edition 2024, but not before it.
I couldn't quite figure out how to check for the span properly, so for now
we just turn the false positives into false negatives, which are less bad.
fix: Replace Just the variable name in Unused Variable Diagnostic Fix
Changes Unused Variable diagnostic to just look at the variable name, not the entire syntax range.
Also added a test for an unused variable in an array destructure.
Closes#17053
internal: Enforce utf8 paths
Cargo already requires this, and I highly doubt r-a works with non-utf8 paths generally either. This just makes dealing with paths a lot easier.
Add fuel to match checking
Exhaustiveness checking is NP-hard hence can take extremely long to check some specific matches. This PR makes ehxaustiveness bail after a set number of steps. I chose a bound that takes ~100ms on my machine, which should be more than enough for normal matches.
I'd like someone with less recent hardware to run the test to see if that limit is low enough for them. Also curious if the r-a team thinks this is a good ballpark or if we should go lower/higher. I don't have much data on how complex real-life matches get, but we can definitely go lower than `500 000` steps.
The second commit is a drive-by soundness fix which doesn't matter much today but will matter once `min_exhaustive_patterns` is stabilized.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/9528 cc `@matklad`
fix: Ignore some warnings if they originate from within macro expansions
These tend to be annoying noise as we can't handle `allow`s for them properly for the time being.
