4640: Add `inRustProject` when-clause for commands in vscode r=vsrs a=vsrs
At the moment all rust-analyzer commands always visible in the command palette, even if there is no rust project opened.
This PR adds special [when-clause](https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/keybindings#_when-clause-contexts) context. This context also might be used in key bindings.
Co-authored-by: vsrs <vit@conrlab.com>
Co-authored-by: vsrs <62505555+vsrs@users.noreply.github.com>
4306: Make incremental sync opt-out and fix line index rebuild r=matklad a=lnicola
4308: Update server binary paths in docs r=matklad a=Coder-256
Fixed incorrect macOS path and converted to a list. Also, should the Windows path include `matklad.rust-analyzer`? (I can't check)
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Greenfield <jacob@jacobgreenfield.me>
3998: Make add_function generate functions in other modules via qualified path r=matklad a=TimoFreiberg
Additional feature for #3639
- [x] Add tests for paths with more segments
- [x] Make generating the function in another file work
- [x] Add `pub` or `pub(crate)` to the generated function if it's generated in a different module
- [x] Make the assist jump to the edited file
- [x] Enable file support in the `check_assist` helper
4006: Syntax highlighting for format strings r=matklad a=ltentrup
I have an implementation for syntax highlighting for format string modifiers `{}`.
The first commit refactors the changes in #3826 into a separate struct.
The second commit implements the highlighting: first we check in a macro call whether the macro is a format macro from `std`. In this case, we remember the format string node. If we encounter this node during syntax highlighting, we check for the format modifiers `{}` using regular expressions.
There are a few places which I am not quite sure:
- Is the way I extract the macro names correct?
- Is the `HighlightTag::Attribute` suitable for highlighting the `{}`?
Let me know what you think, any feedback is welcome!
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <ltentrup@users.noreply.github.com>
* People might typically jump directly to their editor and wonder where the part about installing rust-analyzer is – at least I did. I added a link to the relevant section for ST.
* Make ST instructions more detailed and user friendly (especially beginners), include troubleshooting tips.
* Minor grammar improvements throughout.
3925: Implement assist "Reorder field names" r=matklad a=geoffreycopin
This PR implements the "Reorder record fields" assist as discussed in issue #3821 .
Adding a `RecordFieldPat` variant to the `Pat` enum seemed like the easiest way to handle the `RecordPat` children as a single sequence of elements, maybe there is a better way ?
Co-authored-by: Geoffrey Copin <copin.geoffrey@gmail.com>
todo!() "Indicates unfinished code" (https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.todo.html)
Rust documentation provides further clarification:
> The difference between unimplemented! and todo! is that while todo!
> conveys an intent of implementing the functionality later and the
> message is "not yet implemented", unimplemented! makes no such claims.
todo!() seems more appropriate for assists that insert missing impls.
3746: Add create_function assist r=flodiebold a=TimoFreiberg
The function part of #3639, creating methods will come later
- [X] Function arguments
- [X] Function call arguments
- [x] Method call arguments
- [x] Literal arguments
- [x] Variable reference arguments
- [X] Migrate to `ast::make` API
Done, but there are some ugly spots.
Issues to handle in another PR:
- function reference arguments: Their type isn't printed properly right now.
The "insert explicit type" assist has the same issue and this is probably a relatively rare usecase.
- generating proper names for all kinds of argument expressions (if, loop, ...?)
Without this, it's totally possible for the assist to generate invalid argument names.
I think the assist it's already helpful enough to be shipped as it is, at least for me the main usecase involves passing in named references.
Besides, the Rust tooling ecosystem is immature enough that some janky behaviour in a new assist probably won't scare anyone off.
- select the generated placeholder body so it's a bit easier to overwrite it
- create method (`self.foo<|>(..)` or `some_foo.foo<|>(..)`) instead of create_function.
The main difference would be finding (or creating) the impl block and inserting the `self` argument correctly
- more specific default arg names for literals.
So far, every generated argument whose name can't be taken from the call site is called `arg` (with a number suffix if necessary).
- creating functions in another module of the same crate.
E.g. when typing `some_mod::foo<|>(...)` when in `lib.rs`, I'd want to have `foo` generated in `some_mod.rs` and jump there.
Issues: the mod could exist in `some_mod.rs`, in `lib.rs` as `mod some_mod`, or inside another mod but be imported via `use other_mod::some_mod`.
- refer to arguments of the generated function with a qualified path if the types aren't imported yet
(alternative: run autoimport. i think starting with a qualified path is cleaner and there's already an assist to replace a qualified path with an import and an unqualified path)
- add type arguments of the arguments to the generated function
- Autocomplete functions with information from unresolved calls (see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605281323)
Issues: see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605282542. The unresolved call could be anywhere. But just offering this autocompletion for unresolved calls in the same module would already be cool.
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
3700: fill match arms with empty block rather than unit tuple r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
As requested by @Veetaha in #3689 and #3687, this modifies the fill match arms assist to create match arms as an empty block `{}` rather than a unit tuple `()`.
In one test I left one of the pre-existing match arms as a unit tuple, and added a body to another match arm, to demonstrate that the contents of existing match arms persist.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
