| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |\| | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/ |
|
| | | |
|
| | |\
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
4178: Validate the location of `crate` in paths r=matklad a=djrenren
**This solution does not fully handle `use` statements. See below**
This pull requests implements simple validation of usages of the `crate` keyword in `Path`s. Specifically it validates that:
- If a `PathSegment` is starts with the `crate` keyword, it is also the first segment of the `Path`
- All other usages of `crate` in `Path`s are considered errors.
This aligns with `rustc`'s rules. Unlike rustc this implementation does not issue a special error message in the case of `::crate` but it does catch the error.
Furthermore, this change does not cover all error cases. Specifically the following is not caught:
```rust
use foo::{crate}
```
This is because this check is context sensitive. From an AST perspective, `crate` is the root of the `Path`. Only by inspecting the full `UseItem` do we see that it is not in fact the root. This problem becomes worse because `UseTree`s are allowed to be arbitrarily nested:
```rust
use {crate, {{crate, foo::{crate}}}
```
So this is a hard problem to solve without essentially a breadth-first search. In a traditional compiler, I'd say this error is most easily found during the AST -> HIR conversion pass but within rust-analyzer I'm not sure where it belongs.
Under the implementation in this PR, such errors are ignored so we're *more correct* just not *entirely correct*.
Co-authored-by: John Renner <[email protected]>
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/ |
|
| |/
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
4134: Special case for empty comments in doc comment kind r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Part of #4103
Fix `ui/empty/empty-comment.rs macros`
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | \ | |
| |\ \ \
| |_|/
|/| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
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 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Leander Tentrup <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
identifiers
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Co-Authored-By: bjorn3 <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
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.
|
| | | | |
|
| |/ / |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
4038: Group generated ast boilerplate apart from the interesting part r=matklad a=Veetaha
Boilerplate `AstNode` and `From` impls are moved to the end further from the interesting part in `generated.rs`
Co-authored-by: veetaha <[email protected]>
|
| | |/ |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The fix is admittedly quit literally just papering over.
Long-term, I see two more principled approaches:
* we switch to a fully tree-based impl, without parse . to_string
step; with this approach, there shouldn't be any panics. The results
might be nonsensical, but so was the original input.
* we preserve the invariant that re-parsing constructed node is an
identity, and make all the `make_xxx` method return an `Option`.
closes #4044
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The grammar now looks like this
[name_ref :] pat
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We used
name [: expr]
grammar before, now it is
[name :] expr
which makes things simpler
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I think this makes is more clear which things are : AstNode and which
are : AstToken
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
