Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Rust: upgrade rust-analyzer to 0.0.288 - #19524
Conversation
cc2e8ab to
28b504aComparerust-analyzer to 0.0.279rust-analyzer to 0.0.281
geoffw0
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
QL changes LGTM.
I've raised some questions on the DCA run, it looks like a net gain but there are some regressions in there that deserve discussing.
Extractor changes not reviewed.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
rust-analyzer to 0.0.281rust-analyzer to 0.0.285aibaars
commented
Jun 5, 2025
Looks good to me. The additional path resolution inconsistencies are a bit annoying though. Any idea where they come from? |
geoffw0
commented
Jun 5, 2025
Judging by the second DCA run it looks like we're extracting significantly fewer files successfully as well - though the run did fail so I don't want to read too much into that. |
redsun82
commented
Jun 5, 2025
Don't know, there are still loads of unexpanded macros around :sigh: |
redsun82
commented
Jun 5, 2025
I've opened rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19931 (as I couldn't reopen rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19873). |
rust-analyzer to 0.0.285rust-analyzer to 0.0.287redsun82
commented
Jun 13, 2025
oh well, there's a weird path resolution test error I'll need to look into on Monday :sigh: |
rust-analyzer to 0.0.287rust-analyzer to 0.0.2885cf6b5c to
7edae1eCompare| {{#final}} | ||
| or | ||
| result = getImmediateChildOf{{name}}(e, index, partialAccessor) | ||
| index = min(int i | result = getImmediateChildOf{{name}}(e, i, partialAccessor) | i) |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| if err.span().anchor.file_id == semantics.hir_file_for(node.syntax()) { | ||
| let hir_file_id = semantics.hir_file_for(node.syntax()); | ||
| if Some(err.span().anchor.file_id.file_id()) | ||
| == hir_file_id.file_id().map(|f| f.file_id(semantics.db)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how did you figure out that you needed the file_id of the file_id of the file_id of file_id ? ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
turtles all the way down... 🤷
| .and_then(|s| s.expand_macro_call(mcall)) | ||
| { | ||
| self.emit_macro_expansion_parse_errors(mcall, &expanded); | ||
| self.emit_macro_expansion_parse_errors(mcall, &expanded.value); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does expanded also have an err field? If so, let log it, hopefully it'll provide some useful information of why an expansion failed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, the latest version of the PR does that
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
aibaars
commented
Jun 23, 2025
Don't forgot to commit empty expected files for |
190ab52 to
1823a22Compare1823a22 to
13b28e2Compare| | macro_expansion.rs:63:9:63:32 | include_str!... | | ||
| warnings | ||
| | included/included.rs:1:1:1:1 | semantic analyzer unavailable (not loaded as its own module, probably included by `!include`) | | ||
| | macro_expansion.rs:56:9:56:31 | macro expansion failed: could not resolve macro 'concat' | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does these changes mean we expand fewer macros?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it does unfortunately. It is likely that the cause is the same as for rust-lang/rust-analyzer#20037 . See also the DCA report for more insight in the impact.
hvitved
commented
Jun 23, 2025
Database build time, average 8 % speedup 🎉 |
No description provided.