bugfix : skip doc(hidden) default members

[alibektas]

fixes #14957 . I have two questions :

1. I am definitely looking for a more idiomatic way for the things I added in crates/ide-assists/src/utils.rs. See FIXME in that file.
2. Would it be actually better to change DefaultMethods to something like

enum DefaultMethods {
     Only( IgnoreHidden ( bool ) ) ,
     None
}

instead of adding a boolean to every function that calls crates/ide-assists/src/utils.rs::filter_assoc_items

[Veykril]

I don't think we'll ever want to not ignore doc(hidden) assoc items here so we can drop the ignore_hidden: bool, param.

[lowr]

I don't think we'll ever want to not ignore doc(hidden) assoc items here so we can drop the ignore_hidden: bool, param.

I initially thought the same thing, but on a second thought, you may want them when they're in local crates as opposed to external crates.

[alibektas]

I don't think we'll ever want to not ignore doc(hidden) assoc items here so we can drop the ignore_hidden: bool, param.

I initially thought the same thing, but on a second thought, you may want them when they're in local crates as opposed to external crates.

From the thumbs up I gather that we do want to have some sort of guard and this should in addition check that the original trait is a local one if we want to skip ignoring items with doc(hidden) attr. So my question is how you know if the original crate is a local?
I came up with this but there is something unlikable about it :) :

hir::AssocItem::containing_trait(assoc_item, db)?
                .module(db)
                .krate()
                .origin(db)
                .is_local();

[Veykril]

That seems fine for checking if the crate is local

[alibektas]

This PR is almost finished, the last problem I have is with declaring a crate as workspace crate using test-utils::fixture. See FIXME in add_missing_impl_mems. Once I understand that I want to add two more tests, one for workspace crates and one for lib crates, after which this PR will be ready for a merge.

[lowr]

I think what you want is new_source_root meta. See this test and its following tests for example.

[Veykril]

@alibektas did you take a look at the new_source_root thing?

[alibektas]

Yes I did. But I couldn't really do what I wanted to, which I though could have been fixed with this PR . It was however not merged the last time I checked it. So now that it's merged I will finish this one either today or tomorrow the latest.

[alibektas]

@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review

[alibektas]

I believe this is ready to be merged.

[Veykril]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 915ddb0 has been approved by Veykril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 915ddb0 with merge efc5a81...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Veykril
Pushing efc5a81 to master...