4903: Add highlighting support for doc comments r=matklad a=Nashenas88
The language server protocol includes a semantic modifier for documentation. This change exports that modifier for doc comments so users can choose to highlight them differently compared to regular comments.
Example:
<img width="375" alt="Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 10 34 14 AM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1673130/84788271-f6599580-afbc-11ea-96e5-7a0215da620b.png">
CC @woody77
Co-authored-by: Paul Daniel Faria <Nashenas88@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit adds a function that tries to determine the syntax highlighting class of NAME_REFs based on the usage.
It is used for highlighting injections (such as highlighting of doctests) as the semantic logic will most of the time result in unresolved references.
It also adds a color to unresolved references in HTML encoding.
4775: Add goto def for enum variant field r=matklad a=unexge
Closes#4764. I'm not familiar with ra codebase, there might be better ways to do that 😄
Co-authored-by: unexge <unexge@gmail.com>
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>
Detailed changes:
1) Implement a lexer for string literals that divides the string in format specifier `{}` including the format specifier modifier.
2) Adapt syntax highlighting to add ranges for the detected sequences.
3) Add a test case for the format string syntax highlighting.
This is a quick way to implement unresolved reference diagnostics.
For example, adding to VS Code config
"editor.tokenColorCustomizationsExperimental": {
"unresolvedReference": "#FF0000"
},
will highlight all unresolved refs in red.
3826: Flatten nested highlight ranges during DFS traversal r=matklad a=ltentrup
Implements the flattening of nested highlights from #3447.
There is a caveat: I needed to add `Clone` to `HighlightedRange` to split highlight ranges ~and the nesting does not appear in the syntax highlighting test (it does appear in the accidental-quadratic test but there it is not checked against a ground-truth)~.
I have added a test case for the example mentioned in #3447.
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <leander.tentrup@gmail.com>
In textmate, keyword.control is used for all kinds of things; in fact,
the default scope mapping for keyword is keyword.control!
So let's add a less ambiguous controlFlow modifier
See Microsoft/vscode#94367
