Fix handling of whitespace when applying SSR within macro expansions. #5096
Conversation
I originally did replacement by passing in the full file text. Then as some point I thought I could do without it. Turns out calling .text() on a node coming from a macro expansion isn't a great idea, especially when you then try and use ranges from the original source to cut that text. The test I added here actually panics without the rest of this change (sorry I didn't notice sooner).
|
Any chance we can either get this change into today's release or revert #5007 ? I'm worried about the potential for panics or incorrect edits when matches are found within macro expansions. |
This should be fine, generally. We are not at the stage where we can guarantee that all features are robust and never panic. Panics generally don't kill the whole of rust-analyzer, only the current request.
Yeah, in general, applying modifications to macros is tricky. The core of the problem is that you can generate correct modification in terms of the expanded code, but mapping to the original code is somewhat lossy. I think the general promising approach here is that:
bors r+ |
2 participants
I originally did replacement by passing in the full file text. Then as some point I thought I could do without it. Turns out calling .text() on a node coming from a macro expansion isn't a great idea, especially when you then try and use ranges from the original source to cut that text. The test I added here actually panics without the rest of this change (sorry I didn't notice sooner).