7543: Grammar fixes r=Kushagra-0801 a=Kushagra-0801
I think line 235 is still wrong, but I am not sure.
Is the `crated/tt` in line 252 supposed to be `crates/tt`?
Co-authored-by: Kushagra Gupta <39802979+Kushagra-0801@users.noreply.github.com>
7541: Use block_def_map in body lowering (third time's the charm) r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
After https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7380 and https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/7506 both had to be reverted, this should have finally resolved all remaining bugs.
Most importantly, the optimization to skip `block_def_map` computation when the block contains no inner items was fixed (which fortunately was simpler than expected).
I've ran `analysis-stats` on libstd locally, which works fine, and also ran this PR locally for a short while without issues.
Note that this *still* has no (or almost no) user-facing impact, because the rest of r-a still relies on some local item support hacks.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
7538: Make sure normal dependencies always have version r=edwin0cheng a=pksunkara
How do I prevent this happening in the future by doing something in the CI? IIRC this is the second time.
Co-authored-by: Pavan Kumar Sunkara <pavan.sss1991@gmail.com>
7537: Fix spelling mistakes in docs/dev r=Veykril a=Veykril
Also adds a line for `crates/cfg` and `crates/stdx` to the architecture.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
7525: Fix resolution of `crate` paths from within blocks r=jonas-schievink a=jonas-schievink
They resolve to the crate root, not the DefMap's root module (which
can be a block)
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Jonas Schievink <jonasschievink@gmail.com>
7522: Use non-deprecated memmap2 crate r=kjeremy a=kjeremy
`cargo audit` complains that `memmap` is unmaintained so switch to
RazrFalcon's maintained version.
Removes yet another edge on winapi
Co-authored-by: kjeremy <kjeremy@gmail.com>
7520: Show alias underlying type r=lnicola a=lumenian
Closes#7511
Display underlying type in the tooltip:
```rust
pub type SomeAlias = f64
```
instead of:
```rust
pub type SomeAlias
```
Co-authored-by: lumenian <lumenian@gmail.com>
7508: Don't filter code suggestions on Applicability r=lnicola a=CryZe
I've noticed that there are various suggestions that rust-analyzer seems to filter out, even if they make sense.
Here's an example of where it seems like there should be a suggestion, but there isn't:
It turns out that this specific suggestion is not considered `MachineApplicable`, which are the only suggestions that rust-analyzer accepts. However if you read the documentation for `MachineApplicable`,
[Source](b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L27-L29))
```rust
/// The suggestion is definitely what the user intended. This suggestion should be
/// automatically applied.
MachineApplicable,
```
then you realize that these are specifically only those suggestions that rust-analyzer could even automatically apply (in some distant future, behind some setting or command or so). Other suggestions that may have some semantic impact do not use `MachineApplicable`. So all other suggestions are still intended to be suggested to the user, just not automatically applied without the user being consulted.
[Source](b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L22-L24))
```rust
/// All suggestions are marked with an `Applicability`. Tools use the applicability of a suggestion
/// to determine whether it should be automatically applied or if the user should be consulted
/// before applying the suggestion.
```
So with that in mind, rust-analyzer should almost definitely not filter out `MaybeIncorrect` (which honestly is named horribly, it just means that it's a semantic change, not just a syntactical one).
Then there's `HasPlaceholders` which basically is just another semantic one, but with placeholders. The user will have to make some adjustments, but the suggestion still is perfectly valid. rust-analyzer could probably detect those placeholders and put proper "tab through" markers there for the IDE, but that's not necessary for now.
Then the last one is `Unspecified` which is so unknown that I don't even know how to judge it, meaning that the suggestion should probably also just be suggested to the user and then they can decide.
So with all that in mind, I'm proposing to get rid of the check for Applicability entirely.
Co-authored-by: Christopher Serr <christopher.serr@gmail.com>
I've noticed that there are various suggestions that rust-analyzer seems
to filter out, even if they make sense.
Here's an example of where it seems like there should be a suggestion,
but there isn't:
It turns out that this specific suggestion is not considered
`MachineApplicable`, which are the only suggestions that rust-analyzer
accepts. However if you read the documentation for `MachineApplicable`,
b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L27-L29)
then you realize that these are specifically only those suggestions that
rust-analyzer could even automatically apply (in some distant future,
behind some setting or so). Other suggestions that may have some
semantic impact do not use `MachineApplicable`. So all other suggestions
are still intended to be suggested to the user, just not automatically
applied without the user being consulted.
b3897e3d13/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs (L22-L24)
So with that in mind, rust-analyzer should almost definitely not filter
out `MaybeIncorrect` (which honestly is named horribly, it just means
that it's a semantic change, not just a syntactical one).
Then there's `HasPlaceholders` which basically is just another semantic
one, but with placeholders. The user will have to make some adjustments,
but the suggestion still is perfectly valid. rust-analyzer could
probably detect those placeholders and put proper "tab through" markers
there for the IDE, but that's not necessary for now.
Then the last one is `Unspecified` which is so unknown that I don't even
know how to judge it, meaning that the suggestion should probably also
just be suggested to the user and then they can decide.
So with all that in mind, I'm proposing to get rid of the check for
Applicability entirely.
