In cases like:
var j *int
var i int = <>
We will now provide "*j" as a completion candidate.
Change-Id: I1d35c2dca4864f13f7534e15b17450d784985557
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/215358
Run-TryBot: Muir Manders <muir@mnd.rs>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
I want to stop sorting unimported completions. We still want to show
users something reasonable, so use label as a tiebreaker for score in
the higher level completion function.
To maintain the current sorting, we need to adjust scores by search
depth (height?) for lexical completions. A few tests are really ties,
and need sorting in the test case.
Change-Id: Ie2d09fdcbebf6fda4ab33a2f16c579d12b0f26ad
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/212633
Run-TryBot: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
We now support taking the address of objects to make better completion
candidates. For example:
i := 123
var p *int = <> // now you get a candidate for "&i"
This required that we track addressability better, particularly when
searching for deep candidates. Now each candidate knows if it is
addressable, and the deep search propagates addressability to child
candidates appropriately.
The basic propagation logic is:
- In-scope *types.Var candidates are addressable. This handles your
basic "foo" variable whose address if "&foo".
- Surrounding selector is addressable based on type checker info. This
knows "foo.bar.<>" is addressable but "foo.bar().<>" isn't
- When evaluating deep completions, fields after a function call lose
addressability, but fields after a pointer regain addressability. For
example, "foo.bar()" isn't addressable, but "foo.bar().baz" is
addressable if "bar()" returns a pointer.
Fixesgolang/go#36132.
Change-Id: I6a8659eb8c203262aedf86844ac39a2d1e81ecc4
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/212399
Run-TryBot: Muir Manders <muir@mnd.rs>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
In cases like:
var foo []io.Writer
var buf *bytes.Buffer
foo = append(foo, <>)
we weren't giving "buf" a good score. When comparing the candidate
type *bytes.Buffer to the (variadic) expected type []io.Writer we were
turning the candidate type into []*bytes.Buffer. However, of course,
[]*bytes.Buffer is not assignable to []io.Writer, so the types didn't
match. Now we instead turn the expected type []io.Writer into
io.Writer and compare to *bytes.Buffer.
I fixed the @rank test note to check that the candidates' scores are
strictly decreasing. Previously it would allow candidates with the
same score if they happened to be in the right order. This made it
easier to right a test for this issue, but also uncovered an issue
with untyped completion logic. I fixed it to do the untyped constant
check if _either_ the expected or candidate type is
untyped (previously it required the candidate type to be untyped).
Fixesgolang/go#35625.
Change-Id: I9a837d6a781669cb7a2f1d6d3d7f360c85be49eb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/207518
Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
We now continue deep completion search across function calls. The
function must take no arguments and return a single argument. For
example, when completing "fo<>" you might get candidates such as
"foo.bar().baz()".
Previously we would stop searching for deep completions when we hit a
function call. For example, we would stop at "foo.bar()", never
finding "foo.bar().baz()". At the time I was worried about the search
scope growing too large, but now that we dynamically limit the search
scope there isn't much left to worry about.
Change-Id: I48772c154400662876682503c1f58ef6e3dca688
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/201222
Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
Our completion tests check for a lot of different behaviors. It may be
easier to develop if we have separate tests for things like deep
completion and completion snippets.
Change-Id: I7f4b0c0e52670f2a6c00247199933fd1ffa0096f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/196021
Run-TryBot: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Ian Cottrell <iancottrell@google.com>
