feat: Add incorrect case diagnostics for enum variant fields and all variables/params
Updates the incorrect case diagnostic to check:
1. Fields of enum variants. Example:
```rust
enum Foo {
Variant { nonSnake: u8 }
}
```
2. All variable bindings, instead of just let bindings and certain match arm patters. Examples:
```rust
match 1 { nonSnake => () }
match 1 { nonSnake @ 1 => () }
match 1 { nonSnake1 @ nonSnake2 => () } // slightly cursed, but these both introduce new
// bindings that are bound to the same value.
const ONE: i32 = 1;
match 1 { nonSnake @ ONE } // ONE is ignored since it is not a binding
match Some(1) { Some(nonSnake) => () }
struct Foo { field: u8 }
match (Foo { field: 1 } ) {
Foo { field: nonSnake } => ();
}
struct Foo { nonSnake: u8 } // diagnostic here, at definition
match (Foo { nonSnake: 1 } ) { // no diagnostic here...
Foo { nonSnake } => (); // ...or here, since these are not where the name is introduced
}
for nonSnake in [] {}
struct Foo(u8);
for Foo(nonSnake) in [] {}
```
3. All parameter bindings, instead of just top-level binding identifiers. Examples:
```rust
fn func(nonSnake: u8) {} // worked before
struct Foo { field: u8 }
fn func(Foo { field: nonSnake }: Foo) {} // now get diagnostic for nonSnake
```
This is accomplished by changing the way binding identifier patterns are filtered:
- Previously, all binding idents were skipped, except a few classes of "good" binding locations that were checked.
- Now, all binding idents are checked, except field shorthands which are skipped.
Moving from a whitelist to a blacklist potentially makes the analysis more brittle:
If new pattern types are added in the future where ident pats don't introduce new names, then they may incorrectly create diagnostics.
But the benefit of the blacklist approach is simplicity: I think a whitelist approach would need to recursively visit patterns to collect renaming candidates?
Trigger VSCode to rename after extract variable assist is applied
When the user applies the "Extract Variable" assist, the cursor is
positioned at the newly inserted variable. This commit adds a command
to the assist that triggers the rename action in VSCode. This way, the
user can quickly rename the variable after applying the assist.
Fixes part of: #17579https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4cf38740-ab22-4b94-b0f1-eddd51c26c29
I haven't yet looked at the module or function extraction assists yet.
When the user applies the "Extract Variable" assist, the cursor is
positioned at the newly inserted variable. This commit adds a command
to the assist that triggers the rename action in VSCode. This way, the
user can quickly rename the variable after applying the assist.
Fixes part of: #17579
Add an option to use "::" for the external crate prefix.
Fixes#11823 .
Hi I'm very new to rust-analyzer and not sure how the review process are. Can somebody take a look at this PR? thanks!
Quality of life improvements to term search
Basically two things:
- Allow optionally disabling "borrow checking" restrictions on term search code assists. Sometimes it is better to get invalid suggestions and fix borrow checking issues later...
- Remove explicit generics in generated expressions. I find it quite rare that one writes `None::<T>` instead of `None`.
fix: Improve hover text in unlinked file diagnostics
Use full sentences, and mention how to disable the diagnostic if users are intentionally working on unowned files.
(Full disclosure: I've tested a rust-analyzer build in VS Code, but the pop-up logic is currently disabled due to #17062, so I haven't tested that.)
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
