fix: Do completions in path qualifier position
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12566
Not too happy with the duplication needed for this, but it is what it is. Completions in path qualifiers will have to be filtered properly still, but its better to show too many completions for this than too few for now.
fix: Insert spaces when inlining a function defined in a macro.
(partially) fixes#12860.
This PR (only) addresses the whitespace issue when inlining functions defined in macros.
Additionally, the indentation/spacing is not ideal, but works, e.g.
```rs
macro_rules! define_function {
() => { fn test_function_macro() {
if let Some(3) = 3i32.checked_add(0) {
println!("3 + 0 == 3");
}
} };
}
define_function!();
fn main() {
test_function_macro();
}
// previously became
// ...
fn main() {
ifletSome(3)=3i32.checked_add(0){println!("3 + 0 == 3");};
}
// now becomes
// ...
fn main() {
if let Some(3) = 3i32.checked_add(0){
println!("3 + 0 == 3");
};
}
```
The `self` -> `this` problem[^this] is (probably?) a separate problem that I am also looking into.
[^this]: As mentioned in [my comment on the above issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12860#issuecomment-1193231766), inlining a method defined in a macro does not properly replace `self` with the new local `this`.
feat: Spawn a proc-macro-srv instance per workspace
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/12855
The idea is to have each server be spawned with the appropriate toolchain, that way workspaces with differing toolchains shouldn't suffer from proc-macro abi mismatches.
Fix missing fields check on destructuring assignment
Fixes#12838
When checking if the record literal in question is an assignee expression or not, the new fn `is_assignee_record_literal` iterates over its ancestors until it is sure. This isn't super efficient, as we don't cache anything and does the iteration for every record literal during missing fields check. Alternatively, we may want to have a field like `assignee` on `hir_def::Expr::{RecordLit, Array, Tuple, Call}` to tell if it's an assignee expression, which would be O(1) when checking later but have some memory overhead for the field.
fix: don't replace default members' body
cc #12779, #12821
addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/12821#issuecomment-1190157506
`gen_trait_fn_body()` only attempts to implement required trait member functions, so we shouldn't call it for `Implement default members` assist.
This patch also documents the precondition of `gen_trait_fn_body()` and inserts `debug_assert!`, but I'm not entirely sure if the assertions are appropriate.
