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.
Swap Subtree::token_trees from Vec to boxed slice
Performs one of the optimizations suggested in #16325, but a little bit more. Boxed slices guarantee `shrink_to_fit` aswell as saving a pointer width as no capacity has to be stored.
Most of the diff is:
- Changing `vec![]` to `Box::new([])`
- Changing initialize -> fill into fill -> into_boxed_slice
- Working around the lack of an owned iterator or automatic iteration over a `Box<[T]>`
I would like to use my own crate, [small-fixed-array](https://lib.rs/small-fixed-array), although I understand if it isn't mature enough for this. If I'm given the go ahead, I can rework this PR to use it instead.
internal: even more `tracing`
As part of profiling completions, I added some additional spans and moved `TyBuilder::subst_for_def` closer to its usage site (the latter had a small impact on completion performance. Thanks for the tip, Lukas!)
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
fix: Acknowledge `pub(crate)` imports in import suggestions
rust-analyzer has logic that discounts suggesting `use`s for private imports, but that logic is unnecessarily strict - for instance given this code:
```rust
mod foo {
pub struct Foo;
}
pub(crate) use self::foo::*;
mod bar {
fn main() {
Foo$0;
}
}
```
... RA will suggest to add `use crate::foo::Foo;`, which not only makes the code overly verbose (especially in larger code bases), but also is disjoint with what rustc itself suggests.
This commit adjusts the logic, so that `pub(crate)` imports are taken into account when generating the suggestions; considering rustc's behavior, I think this change doesn't warrant any extra configuration flag.
Note that this is my first commit to RA, so I guess the approach taken here might be suboptimal - certainly feels somewhat hacky, maybe there's some better way of finding out the optimal import path 😅
rust-analyzer has logic that discounts suggesting `use`s for private
imports, but that logic is unnecessarily strict - for instance given
this code:
```rust
mod foo {
pub struct Foo;
}
pub(crate) use self::foo::*;
mod bar {
fn main() {
Foo$0;
}
}
```
... RA will suggest to add `use crate::foo::Foo;`, which not only makes
the code overly verbose (especially in larger code bases), but also is
disjoint with what rustc itself suggests.
This commit adjusts the logic, so that `pub(crate)` imports are taken
into account when generating the suggestions; considering rustc's
behavior, I think this change doesn't warrant any extra configuration
flag.
Note that this is my first commit to RA, so I guess the approach taken
here might be suboptimal - certainly feels somewhat hacky, maybe there's
some better way of finding out the optimal import path 😅
