11145: feat: add config to use reasonable default expression instead of todo! when filling missing fields r=Veykril a=bnjjj
Use `Default::default()` in struct fields when we ask to fill it instead of putting `todo!()` for every fields
before:
```rust
pub enum Other {
One,
Two,
}
pub struct Test {
text: String,
num: usize,
other: Other,
}
fn t_test() {
let test = Test {<|>};
}
```
after:
```rust
pub enum Other {
One,
Two,
}
pub struct Test {
text: String,
num: usize,
other: Other,
}
fn t_test() {
let test = Test {
text: String::new(),
num: 0,
other: todo!(),
};
}
```
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <5719034+bnjjj@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Coenen Benjamin <benjamin.coenen@hotmail.com>
This has to re-introduce the `sink` pattern, because doing this purely
with iterators is awkward :( Maaaybe the event vector was a false start?
But, anyway, I like the current factoring more -- it sort-of obvious
that we do want to keep ws-attachment business in the parser, and that
we also don't want that to depend on the particular tree structure. I
think `shortcuts` module achieves that.
The general theme of this is to make parser a better independent
library.
The specific thing we do here is replacing callback based TreeSink with
a data structure. That is, rather than calling user-provided tree
construction methods, the parser now spits out a very bare-bones tree,
effectively a log of a DFS traversal.
This makes the parser usable without any *specifc* tree sink, and allows
us to, eg, move tests into this crate.
Now, it's also true that this is a distinction without a difference, as
the old and the new interface are equivalent in expressiveness. Still,
this new thing seems somewhat simpler. But yeah, I admit I don't have a
suuper strong motivation here, just a hunch that this is better.
Revert "Fix `impl_trait` function to emit correct ast"
This reverts commit 55a4813151.
Fix `impl_def_from_trait`
It now generates the correct `ast::Impl` using
`generate_trait_impl_text` and parses it to form the right node (copied
from the private fn 'make::ast_from_text').
10689: Handle pub tuple fields in tuple structs r=Veykril a=adamrk
The current implementation will throw a parser error for tuple structs
that contain a pub tuple field. For example,
```rust
struct Foo(pub (u32, u32));
```
is valid Rust, but rust-analyzer will throw a parser error. This is
because the parens after `pub` is treated as a visibility context.
Allowing a tuple type to follow `pub` in the special case when we are
defining fields in a tuple struct can fix the issue.
I guess this is a really minor case because there's not much reason
for having a tuple type within a struct tuple, but it is valid rust syntax...
Co-authored-by: Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@gmail.com>
The current implementation will throw a parser error for tuple structs
that contain a pub tuple field. For example,
```rust
struct Foo(pub (u32, u32));
```
is valid Rust, but rust-analyzer will throw a parser error. This is
because the parens after `pub` is treated as a visibility context.
Allowing a tuple type to follow `pub` in the special case when we are
defining fields in a tuple struct can fix the issue.
