| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
2650: Add macro call support for SourceAnalyzer::type_of r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
2674: Reduce visibility r=matklad a=matklad
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
|/ / |
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
2668: In-server cargo check watching r=matklad a=kiljacken
Opening a draft now so people can follow the progress, and comment if they spot something stupid.
Things that need doing:
- [x] Running cargo check on save
- [x] Pipe through configuration options from client
- [x] Tests for parsing behavior
- [x] Remove existing cargo watch support from VSCode extension
- [x] Progress notification in VSCode extension using LSP 3.15 `$/progress` notification
- [ ] ~~Rework ra-ide diagnostics to support secondary messages~~
- [ ] ~~Make cargo-check watcher use ra-ide diagnostics~~
~~I'd love some input on whether to try to keep the status bar progress thingy for VSCode? It will require some plumbing, and maintaining yet another rust-analyzer specific LSP notification, which I'm not sure we want to.~~
Fixes #1894
Co-authored-by: Emil Lauridsen <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Even though this didn't error, it became clear to me that it was closing
the wrong channel, resulting in the child thread never finishing.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
subprocess
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
|\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
2667: Visibility r=matklad a=flodiebold
This adds the infrastructure for handling visibility (for fields and methods, not in name resolution) in the HIR and code model, and as a first application hides struct fields from completions if they're not visible from the current module. (We might want to relax this again later, but I think it's ok for now?)
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <[email protected]>
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Now that it's not used as a direct query return value anymore, it doesn't need
to be cheaply cloneable anymore.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Methods should be handled the same, and for items the visibility will be in the
def map.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
2657: Omit closure parameters in closure type display strings r=flodiebold a=SomeoneToIgnore
Part of https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/1946
I wonder, should we display the the closure trait (Fn/FnMut/FnOnce) in inlay hints instead of `|...|` at all?
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <[email protected]>
|
| | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
2658: Only add features flags if non-empty r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This prevent error when disabled `all-features` in a cargo workspace, because of `--features is not allowed in the root of a virtual workspace` when running `cargo metadata`.
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|
| | |_|/
| |/| | |
|
|\ \ \ \
| |_|_|/
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
2663: Fill in type params in 'add missing impl members' assist r=flodiebold a=flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <[email protected]>
|
| | |/
| |/| |
|
|\ \ \
| |/ /
|/| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
2661: Implement infer await from async function r=flodiebold a=edwin0cheng
This PR is my attempt for trying to add support for infer `.await` expression from an `async` function, by desugaring its return type to `Impl Future<Output=RetType>`.
Note that I don't know it is supposed to desugaring it in that phase, if it is not suitable in current design, just feel free to reject it :)
r=@flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|