aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/crates/ra_syntax
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
...
* | | | Add missing members generates indented blocksAleksey Kladov2020-05-021-8/+0
| | | |
* | | | Cleanup inline testsAleksey Kladov2020-05-028-30/+59
| | | |
* | | | Update test dataAleksey Kladov2020-05-02178-10580/+10223
| | | |
* | | | Introduce EffectExprAleksey Kladov2020-05-027-76/+73
| | | |
* | | | Revert "Merge #4233"Aleksey Kladov2020-05-023-26/+42
| |_|/ |/| | | | | | | | | | | This reverts commit a5f2b16366f027ad60c58266a66eb7fbdcbda9f9, reversing changes made to c96b2180c1c4206a0a98c280b4d30897eb116336.
| | |
| \ \
*-. \ \ Merge #4220 #4240bors[bot]2020-05-012-17/+24
|\ \ \ \ | | |/ / | |/| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4220: Introduce LowerCtx r=matklad a=edwin0cheng This PR introduces `LowerCtx` for path lowering. After this PR, there are only 2 places remains for using deprecated `Path::from_ast`, which is related to `AstTransform` I am not familiar. I would like to change these in another PR by others ;) related disscusiion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Fwg-rls-2.2E0/topic/Path.3A.3Afrom_src And also fixed part of https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/4176#issuecomment-620672930 4240: Bump deps r=matklad a=lnicola Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <[email protected]>
| | * | Bump depsLaurențiu Nicola2020-05-012-17/+24
| |/ /
* | | Merge #4246bors[bot]2020-05-018-74/+177
|\ \ \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4246: Validate uses of self and super r=matklad a=djrenren This change follows on the validation of the `crate` keyword in paths. It verifies the following things: `super`: - May only be preceded by other `super` segments - If in a `UseItem` then all semantically preceding paths also consist only of `super` `self` - May only be the start of a path Just a note, a couple times while working on this I found myself really wanting a Visitor of some sort so that I could traverse descendants while skipping sub-trees that are unimportant. Iterators don't really work for this, so as you can see I reached for recursion. Considering paths are generally small a fancy debounced visitor probably isn't important but figured I'd say something in case we had something like this lying around and I wasn't using it. Co-authored-by: John Renner <[email protected]>
| * | | Validate uses of self and superJohn Renner2020-05-018-74/+177
| | | |
* | | | Fix pub(self) visibility?Diana2020-05-011-1/+1
| |/ / |/| | | | | | | | Clippy complained about it and it seems wrong
* | | Introduce BlockModifierAleksey Kladov2020-04-302-2/+19
| | |
* | | Remove dead code, which elaborately pretends to be aliveAleksey Kladov2020-04-302-40/+7
|/ /
* | Fix a bunch of false-positives in join-linesAleksey Kladov2020-04-302-1/+5
| |
* | Merge #4227bors[bot]2020-04-305-80/+115
|\ \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4227: Report invalid, nested, multi-segment crate-paths r=matklad a=djrenren There was a bug in the previous path-validating code that didn't detect multi-segment paths that started with `crate`. ```rust // Successfully reported use foo::{crate}; // BUG: was not being reported use foo::{crate::bar}; ``` This was due to my confusion about path-associativity. That is, the path with no qualifier is the innermost path, not the outermost. I've updated the code with a lot of comments to explain what's going on. This bug was discovered when I found an erroneous `ok` test which I reported here: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/4226 This test now fails and has been modified, hopefully in the spirit of the original test, to be correct. Sorry about submitting the bug in the first place! Co-authored-by: John Renner <[email protected]>
| * | Report invalid, nested, multi-segment crate-pathsJohn Renner2020-04-305-80/+115
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Specifically, things like: use foo::{crate::bar}; Are now being caught, when before we only caught: use foo::{crate};
* | | Special-case try macro_rulesEdwin Cheng2020-04-302-0/+28
|/ /
* | Special-case try macro to better support 2015 editionAleksey Kladov2020-04-302-0/+36
| |
* | Merge #4178bors[bot]2020-04-304-0/+120
|\ \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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]>
| * | Validate the location of `crate` in pathsJohn Renner2020-04-294-0/+120
| |/
* | More principled approach for finding From traitAleksey Kladov2020-04-291-2/+1
| |
* | Fix comment prefix method for four slash commentsadamrk2020-04-281-10/+6
| |
* | Treat comments beginning with four slashes as regular line commentsadamrk2020-04-282-0/+16
|/
* Merge #4134bors[bot]2020-04-251-0/+3
|\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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]>
| * Special case for empty commentsEdwin Cheng2020-04-251-0/+3
| |
* | text-size 1.0.0Aleksey Kladov2020-04-251-1/+1
| |
* | Switch to TryFromAleksey Kladov2020-04-255-24/+31
| |
* | Convert tests to text-sizeAleksey Kladov2020-04-25335-22878/+22878
| |
* | Convert code to text-sizeAleksey Kladov2020-04-2514-66/+60
| |
| |
| \
*-. \ Merge #3998 #4006bors[bot]2020-04-242-1/+369
|\ \ \ | |_|/ |/| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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]>
| | * Adapt format specifier highlighting to support escaped squences and unicode ↵Leander Tentrup2020-04-221-122/+158
| | | | | | | | | | | | identifiers
| | * Apply suggestions from code reviewLeander Tentrup2020-04-221-30/+29
| | | | | | | | | | | | Co-Authored-By: bjorn3 <[email protected]>
| | * Implement syntax highlighting for format stringsLeander Tentrup2020-04-201-0/+324
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * | Add `pub(crate)` to functions generated in other moduleTimo Freiberg2020-04-211-0/+4
| | |
| * | Make add_function generate functions in other modules via qualified pathTimo Freiberg2020-04-211-1/+6
| | |
* | | minorAleksey Kladov2020-04-231-4/+0
| | |
* | | Fully get rid of SyntaxNodePtr::rangeAleksey Kladov2020-04-231-3/+3
|/ /
* | Merge #4038bors[bot]2020-04-211-1462/+1462
|\ \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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]>
| * | Group generated ast boilerplate apart from the interesting partveetaha2020-04-181-1462/+1462
| |/
* / Fix panic in split_imports assistAleksey Kladov2020-04-202-3/+11
|/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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
* Don't expose SyntaxNodePtr impl detailsAleksey Kladov2020-04-162-7/+3
|
* Align grammar for record patterns and literalsAleksey Kladov2020-04-118-36/+74
| | | | | | The grammar now looks like this [name_ref :] pat
* Remove dead codeAleksey Kladov2020-04-112-2/+5
|
* Make records grammar more orthogonalAleksey Kladov2020-04-114-4/+94
| | | | | | | | | | | | We used name [: expr] grammar before, now it is [name :] expr which makes things simpler
* Merge pull request #3935 from cjhopman/todoAleksey Kladov2020-04-111-0/+3
|\ | | | | Change missing impl assist to use todo!() instead of unimplemented()
| * Change missing impl assist to use todo!() instead of unimplemented()Chris Hopman2020-04-101-0/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* | Forward compatAleksey Kladov2020-04-101-9/+8
|/
* SimplifyAleksey Kladov2020-04-102-19/+2
|
* Rename some tokensAleksey Kladov2020-04-10199-1043/+1042
|
* Better readabilityAleksey Kladov2020-04-102-0/+142
|
* Remove dead codeAleksey Kladov2020-04-104-195/+187
|
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-12-11 15:25:43 +0000