mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer
synced 2024-12-27 21:43:37 +00:00
573 lines
31 KiB
Markdown
573 lines
31 KiB
Markdown
# Guide to rust-analyzer
|
|
|
|
## About the guide
|
|
|
|
This guide describes the current state of rust-analyzer as of 2019-01-20 (git
|
|
tag [guide-2019-01]). Its purpose is to document various problems and
|
|
architectural solutions related to the problem of building IDE-first compiler
|
|
for Rust. There is a video version of this guide as well:
|
|
https://youtu.be/ANKBNiSWyfc.
|
|
|
|
[guide-2019-01]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/tree/guide-2019-01
|
|
|
|
## The big picture
|
|
|
|
On the highest possible level, rust-analyzer is a stateful component. A client may
|
|
apply changes to the analyzer (new contents of `foo.rs` file is "fn main() {}")
|
|
and it may ask semantic questions about the current state (what is the
|
|
definition of the identifier with offset 92 in file `bar.rs`?). Two important
|
|
properties hold:
|
|
|
|
* Analyzer does not do any I/O. It starts in an empty state and all input data is
|
|
provided via `apply_change` API.
|
|
|
|
* Only queries about the current state are supported. One can, of course,
|
|
simulate undo and redo by keeping a log of changes and inverse changes respectively.
|
|
|
|
## IDE API
|
|
|
|
To see the bigger picture of how the IDE features work, let's take a look at the [`AnalysisHost`] and
|
|
[`Analysis`] pair of types. `AnalysisHost` has three methods:
|
|
|
|
* `default()` for creating an empty analysis instance
|
|
* `apply_change(&mut self)` to make changes (this is how you get from an empty
|
|
state to something interesting)
|
|
* `analysis(&self)` to get an instance of `Analysis`
|
|
|
|
`Analysis` has a ton of methods for IDEs, like `goto_definition`, or
|
|
`completions`. Both inputs and outputs of `Analysis`' methods are formulated in
|
|
terms of files and offsets, and **not** in terms of Rust concepts like structs,
|
|
traits, etc. The "typed" API with Rust specific types is slightly lower in the
|
|
stack, we'll talk about it later.
|
|
|
|
[`AnalysisHost`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/lib.rs#L265-L284
|
|
[`Analysis`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/lib.rs#L291-L478
|
|
|
|
The reason for this separation of `Analysis` and `AnalysisHost` is that we want to apply
|
|
changes "uniquely", but we might also want to fork an `Analysis` and send it to
|
|
another thread for background processing. That is, there is only a single
|
|
`AnalysisHost`, but there may be several (equivalent) `Analysis`.
|
|
|
|
Note that all of the `Analysis` API return `Cancellable<T>`. This is required to
|
|
be responsive in an IDE setting. Sometimes a long-running query is being computed
|
|
and the user types something in the editor and asks for completion. In this
|
|
case, we cancel the long-running computation (so it returns `Err(Cancelled)`),
|
|
apply the change and execute request for completion. We never use stale data to
|
|
answer requests. Under the cover, `AnalysisHost` "remembers" all outstanding
|
|
`Analysis` instances. The `AnalysisHost::apply_change` method cancels all
|
|
`Analysis`es, blocks until all of them are `Dropped` and then applies changes
|
|
in-place. This may be familiar to Rustaceans who use read-write locks for interior
|
|
mutability.
|
|
|
|
Next, let's talk about what the inputs to the `Analysis` are, precisely.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
Rust Analyzer never does any I/O itself, all inputs get passed explicitly via
|
|
the `AnalysisHost::apply_change` method, which accepts a single argument, a
|
|
`Change`. [`Change`] is a builder for a single change
|
|
"transaction", so it suffices to study its methods to understand all of the
|
|
input data.
|
|
|
|
[`Change`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/master/crates/base_db/src/change.rs#L14-L89
|
|
|
|
The `(add|change|remove)_file` methods control the set of the input files, where
|
|
each file has an integer id (`FileId`, picked by the client), text (`String`)
|
|
and a filesystem path. Paths are tricky; they'll be explained below, in source roots
|
|
section, together with the `add_root` method. The `add_library` method allows us to add a
|
|
group of files which are assumed to rarely change. It's mostly an optimization
|
|
and does not change the fundamental picture.
|
|
|
|
The `set_crate_graph` method allows us to control how the input files are partitioned
|
|
into compilation units -- crates. It also controls (in theory, not implemented
|
|
yet) `cfg` flags. `CrateGraph` is a directed acyclic graph of crates. Each crate
|
|
has a root `FileId`, a set of active `cfg` flags and a set of dependencies. Each
|
|
dependency is a pair of a crate and a name. It is possible to have two crates
|
|
with the same root `FileId` but different `cfg`-flags/dependencies. This model
|
|
is lower than Cargo's model of packages: each Cargo package consists of several
|
|
targets, each of which is a separate crate (or several crates, if you try
|
|
different feature combinations).
|
|
|
|
Procedural macros should become inputs as well, but currently they are not
|
|
supported. Procedural macro will be a black box `Box<dyn Fn(TokenStream) -> TokenStream>`
|
|
function, and will be inserted into the crate graph just like dependencies.
|
|
|
|
Soon we'll talk how we build an LSP server on top of `Analysis`, but first,
|
|
let's deal with that paths issue.
|
|
|
|
## Source roots (a.k.a. "Filesystems are horrible")
|
|
|
|
This is a non-essential section, feel free to skip.
|
|
|
|
The previous section said that the filesystem path is an attribute of a file,
|
|
but this is not the whole truth. Making it an absolute `PathBuf` will be bad for
|
|
several reasons. First, filesystems are full of (platform-dependent) edge cases:
|
|
|
|
* It's hard (requires a syscall) to decide if two paths are equivalent.
|
|
* Some filesystems are case-sensitive (e.g. macOS).
|
|
* Paths are not necessarily UTF-8.
|
|
* Symlinks can form cycles.
|
|
|
|
Second, this might hurt the reproducibility and hermeticity of builds. In theory,
|
|
moving a project from `/foo/bar/my-project` to `/spam/eggs/my-project` should
|
|
not change a bit in the output. However, if the absolute path is a part of the
|
|
input, it is at least in theory observable, and *could* affect the output.
|
|
|
|
Yet another problem is that we really *really* want to avoid doing I/O, but with
|
|
Rust the set of "input" files is not necessarily known up-front. In theory, you
|
|
can have `#[path="/dev/random"] mod foo;`.
|
|
|
|
To solve (or explicitly refuse to solve) these problems rust-analyzer uses the
|
|
concept of a "source root". Roughly speaking, source roots are the contents of a
|
|
directory on a file systems, like `/home/matklad/projects/rustraytracer/**.rs`.
|
|
|
|
More precisely, all files (`FileId`s) are partitioned into disjoint
|
|
`SourceRoot`s. Each file has a relative UTF-8 path within the `SourceRoot`.
|
|
`SourceRoot` has an identity (integer ID). Crucially, the root path of the
|
|
source root itself is unknown to the analyzer: A client is supposed to maintain a
|
|
mapping between `SourceRoot` IDs (which are assigned by the client) and actual
|
|
`PathBuf`s. `SourceRoot`s give a sane tree model of the file system to the
|
|
analyzer.
|
|
|
|
Note that `mod`, `#[path]` and `include!()` can only reference files from the
|
|
same source root. It is of course possible to explicitly add extra files to
|
|
the source root, even `/dev/random`.
|
|
|
|
## Language Server Protocol
|
|
|
|
Now let's see how the `Analysis` API is exposed via the JSON RPC based language server protocol. The
|
|
hard part here is managing changes (which can come either from the file system
|
|
or from the editor) and concurrency (we want to spawn background jobs for things
|
|
like syntax highlighting). We use the event loop pattern to manage the zoo, and
|
|
the loop is the [`main_loop_inner`] function. The [`main_loop`] does a one-time
|
|
initialization and tearing down of the resources.
|
|
|
|
[`main_loop`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L51-L110
|
|
[`main_loop_inner`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L156-L258
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's walk through a typical analyzer session!
|
|
|
|
First, we need to figure out what to analyze. To do this, we run `cargo
|
|
metadata` to learn about Cargo packages for current workspace and dependencies,
|
|
and we run `rustc --print sysroot` and scan the "sysroot" (the directory containing the current Rust toolchain's files) to learn about crates like
|
|
`std`. Currently we load this configuration once at the start of the server, but
|
|
it should be possible to dynamically reconfigure it later without restart.
|
|
|
|
[main_loop.rs#L62-L70](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L62-L70)
|
|
|
|
The [`ProjectModel`] we get after this step is very Cargo and sysroot specific,
|
|
it needs to be lowered to get the input in the form of `Change`. This
|
|
happens in [`ServerWorldState::new`] method. Specifically
|
|
|
|
* Create a `SourceRoot` for each Cargo package and sysroot.
|
|
* Schedule a filesystem scan of the roots.
|
|
* Create an analyzer's `Crate` for each Cargo **target** and sysroot crate.
|
|
* Setup dependencies between the crates.
|
|
|
|
[`ProjectModel`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/project_model.rs#L16-L20
|
|
[`ServerWorldState::new`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/server_world.rs#L38-L160
|
|
|
|
The results of the scan (which may take a while) will be processed in the body
|
|
of the main loop, just like any other change. Here's where we handle:
|
|
|
|
* [File system changes](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L194)
|
|
* [Changes from the editor](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L377)
|
|
|
|
After a single loop's turn, we group the changes into one `Change` and
|
|
[apply] it. This always happens on the main thread and blocks the loop.
|
|
|
|
[apply]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/server_world.rs#L216
|
|
|
|
To handle requests, like ["goto definition"], we create an instance of the
|
|
`Analysis` and [`schedule`] the task (which consumes `Analysis`) on the
|
|
threadpool. [The task] calls the corresponding `Analysis` method, while
|
|
massaging the types into the LSP representation. Keep in mind that if we are
|
|
executing "goto definition" on the threadpool and a new change comes in, the
|
|
task will be canceled as soon as the main loop calls `apply_change` on the
|
|
`AnalysisHost`.
|
|
|
|
["goto definition"]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/server_world.rs#L216
|
|
[`schedule`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L426-L455
|
|
[The task]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop/handlers.rs#L205-L223
|
|
|
|
This concludes the overview of the analyzer's programing *interface*. Next, let's
|
|
dig into the implementation!
|
|
|
|
## Salsa
|
|
|
|
The most straightforward way to implement an "apply change, get analysis, repeat"
|
|
API would be to maintain the input state and to compute all possible analysis
|
|
information from scratch after every change. This works, but scales poorly with
|
|
the size of the project. To make this fast, we need to take advantage of the
|
|
fact that most of the changes are small, and that analysis results are unlikely
|
|
to change significantly between invocations.
|
|
|
|
To do this we use [salsa]: a framework for incremental on-demand computation.
|
|
You can skip the rest of the section if you are familiar with `rustc`'s red-green
|
|
algorithm (which is used for incremental compilation).
|
|
|
|
[salsa]: https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa
|
|
|
|
It's better to refer to salsa's docs to learn about it. Here's a small excerpt:
|
|
|
|
The key idea of salsa is that you define your program as a set of queries. Every
|
|
query is used like a function `K -> V` that maps from some key of type `K` to a value
|
|
of type `V`. Queries come in two basic varieties:
|
|
|
|
* **Inputs**: the base inputs to your system. You can change these whenever you
|
|
like.
|
|
|
|
* **Functions**: pure functions (no side effects) that transform your inputs
|
|
into other values. The results of queries are memoized to avoid recomputing
|
|
them a lot. When you make changes to the inputs, we'll figure out (fairly
|
|
intelligently) when we can re-use these memoized values and when we have to
|
|
recompute them.
|
|
|
|
For further discussion, its important to understand one bit of "fairly
|
|
intelligently". Suppose we have two functions, `f1` and `f2`, and one input,
|
|
`z`. We call `f1(X)` which in turn calls `f2(Y)` which inspects `i(Z)`. `i(Z)`
|
|
returns some value `V1`, `f2` uses that and returns `R1`, `f1` uses that and
|
|
returns `O`. Now, let's change `i` at `Z` to `V2` from `V1` and try to compute
|
|
`f1(X)` again. Because `f1(X)` (transitively) depends on `i(Z)`, we can't just
|
|
reuse its value as is. However, if `f2(Y)` is *still* equal to `R1` (despite
|
|
`i`'s change), we, in fact, *can* reuse `O` as result of `f1(X)`. And that's how
|
|
salsa works: it recomputes results in *reverse* order, starting from inputs and
|
|
progressing towards outputs, stopping as soon as it sees an intermediate value
|
|
that hasn't changed. If this sounds confusing to you, don't worry: it is
|
|
confusing. This illustration by @killercup might help:
|
|
|
|
<img alt="step 1" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1711539/51460907-c5484780-1d6d-11e9-9cd2-d6f62bd746e0.png" width="50%">
|
|
|
|
<img alt="step 2" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1711539/51460915-c9746500-1d6d-11e9-9a77-27d33a0c51b5.png" width="50%">
|
|
|
|
<img alt="step 3" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1711539/51460920-cda08280-1d6d-11e9-8d96-a782aa57a4d4.png" width="50%">
|
|
|
|
<img alt="step 4" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1711539/51460927-d1340980-1d6d-11e9-851e-13c149d5c406.png" width="50%">
|
|
|
|
## Salsa Input Queries
|
|
|
|
All analyzer information is stored in a salsa database. `Analysis` and
|
|
`AnalysisHost` types are newtype wrappers for [`RootDatabase`] -- a salsa
|
|
database.
|
|
|
|
[`RootDatabase`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/db.rs#L88-L134
|
|
|
|
Salsa input queries are defined in [`FilesDatabase`] (which is a part of
|
|
`RootDatabase`). They closely mirror the familiar `Change` structure:
|
|
indeed, what `apply_change` does is it sets the values of input queries.
|
|
|
|
[`FilesDatabase`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/base_db/src/input.rs#L150-L174
|
|
|
|
## From text to semantic model
|
|
|
|
The bulk of the rust-analyzer is transforming input text into a semantic model of
|
|
Rust code: a web of entities like modules, structs, functions and traits.
|
|
|
|
An important fact to realize is that (unlike most other languages like C# or
|
|
Java) there is not a one-to-one mapping between the source code and the semantic model. A
|
|
single function definition in the source code might result in several semantic
|
|
functions: for example, the same source file might get included as a module in
|
|
several crates or a single crate might be present in the compilation DAG
|
|
several times, with different sets of `cfg`s enabled. The IDE-specific task of
|
|
mapping source code into a semantic model is inherently imprecise for
|
|
this reason and gets handled by the [`source_binder`].
|
|
|
|
[`source_binder`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/source_binder.rs
|
|
|
|
The semantic interface is declared in the [`code_model_api`] module. Each entity is
|
|
identified by an integer ID and has a bunch of methods which take a salsa database
|
|
as an argument and returns other entities (which are also IDs). Internally, these
|
|
methods invoke various queries on the database to build the model on demand.
|
|
Here's [the list of queries].
|
|
|
|
[`code_model_api`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/code_model_api.rs
|
|
[the list of queries]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/7e84440e25e19529e4ff8a66e521d1b06349c6ec/crates/hir/src/db.rs#L20-L106
|
|
|
|
The first step of building the model is parsing the source code.
|
|
|
|
## Syntax trees
|
|
|
|
An important property of the Rust language is that each file can be parsed in
|
|
isolation. Unlike, say, `C++`, an `include` can't change the meaning of the
|
|
syntax. For this reason, rust-analyzer can build a syntax tree for each "source
|
|
file", which could then be reused by several semantic models if this file
|
|
happens to be a part of several crates.
|
|
|
|
The representation of syntax trees that rust-analyzer uses is similar to that of `Roslyn`
|
|
and Swift's new [libsyntax]. Swift's docs give an excellent overview of the
|
|
approach, so I skip this part here and instead outline the main characteristics
|
|
of the syntax trees:
|
|
|
|
* Syntax trees are fully lossless. Converting **any** text to a syntax tree and
|
|
back is a total identity function. All whitespace and comments are explicitly
|
|
represented in the tree.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax nodes have generic `(next|previous)_sibling`, `parent`,
|
|
`(first|last)_child` functions. You can get from any one node to any other
|
|
node in the file using only these functions.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax nodes know their range (start offset and length) in the file.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax nodes share the ownership of their syntax tree: if you keep a reference
|
|
to a single function, the whole enclosing file is alive.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax trees are immutable and the cost of replacing the subtree is
|
|
proportional to the depth of the subtree. Read Swift's docs to learn how
|
|
immutable + parent pointers + cheap modification is possible.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax trees are build on best-effort basis. All accessor methods return
|
|
`Option`s. The tree for `fn foo` will contain a function declaration with
|
|
`None` for parameter list and body.
|
|
|
|
* Syntax trees do not know the file they are built from, they only know about
|
|
the text.
|
|
|
|
The implementation is based on the generic [rowan] crate on top of which a
|
|
[rust-specific] AST is generated.
|
|
|
|
[libsyntax]: https://github.com/apple/swift/tree/5e2c815edfd758f9b1309ce07bfc01c4bc20ec23/lib/Syntax
|
|
[rowan]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rowan/tree/100a36dc820eb393b74abe0d20ddf99077b61f88
|
|
[rust-specific]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_syntax/src/ast/generated.rs
|
|
|
|
The next step in constructing the semantic model is ...
|
|
|
|
## Building a Module Tree
|
|
|
|
The algorithm for building a tree of modules is to start with a crate root
|
|
(remember, each `Crate` from a `CrateGraph` has a `FileId`), collect all `mod`
|
|
declarations and recursively process child modules. This is handled by the
|
|
[`module_tree_query`], with two slight variations.
|
|
|
|
[`module_tree_query`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/module_tree.rs#L116-L123
|
|
|
|
First, rust-analyzer builds a module tree for all crates in a source root
|
|
simultaneously. The main reason for this is historical (`module_tree` predates
|
|
`CrateGraph`), but this approach also enables accounting for files which are not
|
|
part of any crate. That is, if you create a file but do not include it as a
|
|
submodule anywhere, you still get semantic completion, and you get a warning
|
|
about a free-floating module (the actual warning is not implemented yet).
|
|
|
|
The second difference is that `module_tree_query` does not *directly* depend on
|
|
the "parse" query (which is confusingly called `source_file`). Why would calling
|
|
the parse directly be bad? Suppose the user changes the file slightly, by adding
|
|
an insignificant whitespace. Adding whitespace changes the parse tree (because
|
|
it includes whitespace), and that means recomputing the whole module tree.
|
|
|
|
We deal with this problem by introducing an intermediate [`submodules_query`].
|
|
This query processes the syntax tree and extracts a set of declared submodule
|
|
names. Now, changing the whitespace results in `submodules_query` being
|
|
re-executed for a *single* module, but because the result of this query stays
|
|
the same, we don't have to re-execute [`module_tree_query`]. In fact, we only
|
|
need to re-execute it when we add/remove new files or when we change mod
|
|
declarations.
|
|
|
|
[`submodules_query`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/module_tree.rs#L41
|
|
|
|
We store the resulting modules in a `Vec`-based indexed arena. The indices in
|
|
the arena becomes module IDs. And this brings us to the next topic:
|
|
assigning IDs in the general case.
|
|
|
|
## Location Interner pattern
|
|
|
|
One way to assign IDs is how we've dealt with modules: Collect all items into a
|
|
single array in some specific order and use the index in the array as an ID. The
|
|
main drawback of this approach is that these IDs are not stable: Adding a new item can
|
|
shift the IDs of all other items. This works for modules, because adding a module is
|
|
a comparatively rare operation, but would be less convenient for, for example,
|
|
functions.
|
|
|
|
Another solution here is positional IDs: We can identify a function as "the
|
|
function with name `foo` in a ModuleId(92) module". Such locations are stable:
|
|
adding a new function to the module (unless it is also named `foo`) does not
|
|
change the location. However, such "ID" types ceases to be a `Copy`able integer and in
|
|
general can become pretty large if we account for nesting (for example: "third parameter of
|
|
the `foo` function of the `bar` `impl` in the `baz` module").
|
|
|
|
[`LocationInterner`] allows us to combine the benefits of positional and numeric
|
|
IDs. It is a bidirectional append-only map between locations and consecutive
|
|
integers which can "intern" a location and return an integer ID back. The salsa
|
|
database we use includes a couple of [interners]. How to "garbage collect"
|
|
unused locations is an open question.
|
|
|
|
[`LocationInterner`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/base_db/src/loc2id.rs#L65-L71
|
|
[interners]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/db.rs#L22-L23
|
|
|
|
For example, we use `LocationInterner` to assign IDs to definitions of functions,
|
|
structs, enums, etc. The location, [`DefLoc`] contains two bits of information:
|
|
|
|
* the ID of the module which contains the definition,
|
|
* the ID of the specific item in the modules source code.
|
|
|
|
We "could" use a text offset for the location of a particular item, but that would play
|
|
badly with salsa: offsets change after edits. So, as a rule of thumb, we avoid
|
|
using offsets, text ranges or syntax trees as keys and values for queries. What
|
|
we do instead is we store "index" of the item among all of the items of a file
|
|
(so, a positional based ID, but localized to a single file).
|
|
|
|
[`DefLoc`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/ids.rs#L127-L139
|
|
|
|
One thing we've glossed over for the time being is support for macros. We have
|
|
only proof of concept handling of macros at the moment, but they are extremely
|
|
interesting from an "assigning IDs" perspective.
|
|
|
|
## Macros and recursive locations
|
|
|
|
The tricky bit about macros is that they effectively create new source files.
|
|
While we can use `FileId`s to refer to original files, we can't just assign them
|
|
willy-nilly to the pseudo files of macro expansion. Instead, we use a special
|
|
ID, [`HirFileId`] to refer to either a usual file or a macro-generated file:
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
enum HirFileId {
|
|
FileId(FileId),
|
|
Macro(MacroCallId),
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
`MacroCallId` is an interned ID that specifies a particular macro invocation.
|
|
Its `MacroCallLoc` contains:
|
|
|
|
* `ModuleId` of the containing module
|
|
* `HirFileId` of the containing file or pseudo file
|
|
* an index of this particular macro invocation in this file (positional id
|
|
again).
|
|
|
|
Note how `HirFileId` is defined in terms of `MacroCallLoc` which is defined in
|
|
terms of `HirFileId`! This does not recur infinitely though: any chain of
|
|
`HirFileId`s bottoms out in `HirFileId::FileId`, that is, some source file
|
|
actually written by the user.
|
|
|
|
[`HirFileId`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/ids.rs#L18-L125
|
|
|
|
Now that we understand how to identify a definition, in a source or in a
|
|
macro-generated file, we can discuss name resolution a bit.
|
|
|
|
## Name resolution
|
|
|
|
Name resolution faces the same problem as the module tree: if we look at the
|
|
syntax tree directly, we'll have to recompute name resolution after every
|
|
modification. The solution to the problem is the same: We [lower] the source code of
|
|
each module into a position-independent representation which does not change if
|
|
we modify bodies of the items. After that we [loop] resolving all imports until
|
|
we've reached a fixed point.
|
|
|
|
[lower]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres/lower.rs#L113-L117
|
|
[loop]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres.rs#L186-L196
|
|
|
|
And, given all our preparation with IDs and a position-independent representation,
|
|
it is satisfying to [test] that typing inside function body does not invalidate
|
|
name resolution results.
|
|
|
|
[test]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres/tests.rs#L376
|
|
|
|
An interesting fact about name resolution is that it "erases" all of the
|
|
intermediate paths from the imports: in the end, we know which items are defined
|
|
and which items are imported in each module, but, if the import was `use
|
|
foo::bar::baz`, we deliberately forget what modules `foo` and `bar` resolve to.
|
|
|
|
To serve "goto definition" requests on intermediate segments we need this info
|
|
in the IDE, however. Luckily, we need it only for a tiny fraction of imports, so we just ask
|
|
the module explicitly, "What does the path `foo::bar` resolve to?". This is a
|
|
general pattern: we try to compute the minimal possible amount of information
|
|
during analysis while allowing IDE to ask for additional specific bits.
|
|
|
|
Name resolution is also a good place to introduce another salsa pattern used
|
|
throughout the analyzer:
|
|
|
|
## Source Map pattern
|
|
|
|
Due to an obscure edge case in completion, IDE needs to know the syntax node of
|
|
a use statement which imported the given completion candidate. We can't just
|
|
store the syntax node as a part of name resolution: this will break
|
|
incrementality, due to the fact that syntax changes after every file
|
|
modification.
|
|
|
|
We solve this problem during the lowering step of name resolution. The lowering
|
|
query actually produces a *pair* of outputs: `LoweredModule` and [`SourceMap`].
|
|
The `LoweredModule` module contains [imports], but in a position-independent form.
|
|
The `SourceMap` contains a mapping from position-independent imports to
|
|
(position-dependent) syntax nodes.
|
|
|
|
The result of this basic lowering query changes after every modification. But
|
|
there's an intermediate [projection query] which returns only the first
|
|
position-independent part of the lowering. The result of this query is stable.
|
|
Naturally, name resolution [uses] this stable projection query.
|
|
|
|
[imports]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres/lower.rs#L52-L59
|
|
[`SourceMap`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres/lower.rs#L52-L59
|
|
[projection query]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/nameres/lower.rs#L97-L103
|
|
[uses]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/query_definitions.rs#L49
|
|
|
|
## Type inference
|
|
|
|
First of all, implementation of type inference in rust-analyzer was spearheaded
|
|
by [@flodiebold]. [#327] was an awesome Christmas present, thank you, Florian!
|
|
|
|
Type inference runs on per-function granularity and uses the patterns we've
|
|
discussed previously.
|
|
|
|
First, we [lower the AST] of a function body into a position-independent
|
|
representation. In this representation, each expression is assigned a
|
|
[positional ID]. Alongside the lowered expression, [a source map] is produced,
|
|
which maps between expression ids and original syntax. This lowering step also
|
|
deals with "incomplete" source trees by replacing missing expressions by an
|
|
explicit `Missing` expression.
|
|
|
|
Given the lowered body of the function, we can now run [type inference] and
|
|
construct a mapping from `ExprId`s to types.
|
|
|
|
[@flodiebold]: https://github.com/flodiebold
|
|
[#327]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/327
|
|
[lower the AST]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/expr.rs
|
|
[positional ID]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/expr.rs#L13-L15
|
|
[a source map]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/expr.rs#L41-L44
|
|
[type inference]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/hir/src/ty.rs#L1208-L1223
|
|
|
|
## Tying it all together: completion
|
|
|
|
To conclude the overview of the rust-analyzer, let's trace the request for
|
|
(type-inference powered!) code completion!
|
|
|
|
We start by [receiving a message] from the language client. We decode the
|
|
message as a request for completion and [schedule it on the threadpool]. This is
|
|
the place where we [catch] canceled errors if, immediately after completion, the
|
|
client sends some modification.
|
|
|
|
In [the handler], we deserialize LSP requests into rust-analyzer specific data
|
|
types (by converting a file url into a numeric `FileId`), [ask analysis for
|
|
completion] and serialize results into the LSP.
|
|
|
|
The [completion implementation] is finally the place where we start doing the actual
|
|
work. The first step is to collect the `CompletionContext` -- a struct which
|
|
describes the cursor position in terms of Rust syntax and semantics. For
|
|
example, `function_syntax: Option<&'a ast::FnDef>` stores a reference to
|
|
the enclosing function *syntax*, while `function: Option<hir::Function>` is the
|
|
`Def` for this function.
|
|
|
|
To construct the context, we first do an ["IntelliJ Trick"]: we insert a dummy
|
|
identifier at the cursor's position and parse this modified file, to get a
|
|
reasonably looking syntax tree. Then we do a bunch of "classification" routines
|
|
to figure out the context. For example, we [find an ancestor `fn` node] and we get a
|
|
[semantic model] for it (using the lossy `source_binder` infrastructure).
|
|
|
|
The second step is to run a [series of independent completion routines]. Let's
|
|
take a closer look at [`complete_dot`], which completes fields and methods in
|
|
`foo.bar|`. First we extract a semantic function and a syntactic receiver
|
|
expression out of the `Context`. Then we run type-inference for this single
|
|
function and map our syntactic expression to `ExprId`. Using the ID, we figure
|
|
out the type of the receiver expression. Then we add all fields & methods from
|
|
the type to completion.
|
|
|
|
[receiving a message]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L203
|
|
[schedule it on the threadpool]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L428
|
|
[catch]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ra_lsp_server/src/main_loop.rs#L436-L442
|
|
[the handler]: https://salsa.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/181542-rfcs.2Fsalsa-query-group/topic/design.20next.20steps
|
|
[ask analysis for completion]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/lib.rs#L439-L444
|
|
[completion implementation]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion.rs#L46-L62
|
|
[`CompletionContext`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion/completion_context.rs#L14-L37
|
|
["IntelliJ Trick"]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion/completion_context.rs#L72-L75
|
|
[find an ancestor `fn` node]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion/completion_context.rs#L116-L120
|
|
[semantic model]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion/completion_context.rs#L123
|
|
[series of independent completion routines]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion.rs#L52-L59
|
|
[`complete_dot`]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/blob/guide-2019-01/crates/ide_api/src/completion/complete_dot.rs#L6-L22
|