internal: Record all macro definitions in ItemScope
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12100
Doesn't resolve the shadowing issues though, fixing those is gonna be really tricky I believe unless we can come up with a nice scheme to "order" item tree items (using syntax ranges and file ids would be a pain and also a bad idea since that'll require us to potentially reparse files in collection).
This change attempts to resolve issue #7636: Extract into Function does not
create a generic function with constraints when extracting generic code.
In `FunctionBody::analyze_container`, we now traverse the `ancestors` in search
of `AnyHasGenericParams`, and attach any `GenericParamList`s and `WhereClause`s
we find to the `ContainerInfo`.
Later, in `format_function`, we collect all the `GenericParam`s and
`WherePred`s from the container, and filter them to keep only types matching
`TypeParam`s used within the newly extracted function body or param list. We
can then include the new `GenericParamList` and `WhereClause` in the new
function definition.
This change only impacts `TypeParam`s. `LifetimeParam`s and `ConstParam`s are
out of scope for this change.
feat: Show witnesses of non-exhaustiveness in `missing-match-arm` diagnostic
Shamelessly copied from rustc. Thus reporting format is same.
This extends public api `hir::diagnostics::MissingMatchArms` with `uncovered_patterns: String` field. It does not expose data for implementing a quick fix yet.
-----
Worth to note: current implementation does not give a comprehensive list of missing patterns. Also mentioned in [paper](http://moscova.inria.fr/~maranget/papers/warn/warn.pdf):
> One may think that algorithm I should make an additional effort to provide more
> non-matching values, by systematically computing recursive calls on specialized
> matrices when possible, and by returning a list of all pattern vectors returned by
> recursive calls. We can first observe that it is not possible in general to supply the
> users with all non-matching values, since the signature of integers is (potentially)
> infinite.
Distinguish between
- there is no build data (for some reason?)
- there is build data, but the cargo package didn't build a proc macro dylib
- there is a proc macro dylib, but it didn't contain the proc macro we expected
- the name did not resolve to any macro (this is now an
unresolved_macro_call even for attributes)
I changed the handling of disabled attribute macro expansion to
immediately ignore the macro and report an unresolved_proc_macro,
because otherwise they would now result in loud unresolved_macro_call
errors. I hope this doesn't break anything.
Also try to improve error ranges for unresolved_macro_call / macro_error
by reusing the code for unresolved_proc_macro. It's not perfect but
probably better than before.
