Some editors use diagnostics from SourceKit to replace build issues. This causes issues if the diagnostics from SourceKit are formatted differently than the build issues. Make sure they are rendered the same way, removing most uses of `DiagnosticsEditorMode`.
To do so, always emit the `add stubs for conformance` note (which previously was only emitted in editor mode) and remove all `; add <something>` suffixes from notes that state which requirements are missing.
rdar://129283608
To help support incremental adoption of the concurrency model, a number
of concurrency-related diagnostics are enabled only in "new" code that
takes advantage of concurrency features---async, @concurrent functions,
actors, etc. This warning flag opts into additional warnings that better
approximate the eventual concurrency model, and which will become
errors a future Swift version, allowing one to both experiment with
the full concurrency model and also properly prepare for it.
* [TypeChecker] Enclosing stubs protocol note within editor mode
* [test] Removing note from test where there is no -diagnostics-editor-mode flag
* Formatting modified code
* [tests] Fixing tests under validation-tests
Under non-editor mode, the fixit for inserting protocol stubs is associated with a note
pointing to the missing protocol member declaration which could stay in a separate file from
the conforming type, leading to the behavior of rdar://51534405. This change checks if
the fixit is in a separate file and issues another note to carry the fixit if so.
rdar://51534405
Continue to emit notes for the candidates, but use different text.
Note that we can emit a typo correction fix-it even if there are
multiple candidates with the same name.
Also, disable typo correction in the migrator, since the operation
is quite expensive, the notes are never presented to the user, and
the fix-its can interfere with the migrator's own edits.
Our general guidance is that fix-its should be added on the main
diagnostic only when the fix-it is highly likely to be correct.
The exact threshold is debateable. Typo correction is certainly
capable of making mistakes, but most of its edits are right, and
when it's wrong it's usually obviously wrong. On balance, I think
this is the right thing to do. For what it's worth, it's also
what we do in Clang.
* Allow CodingKey conformance to be automatically derived for enums
which have no raw type (with no associated values) and which have
a raw type of String or Int.
* Allow Encodable and Decodable conformance to be automatically derived
for classes and structs with Encodable/Decodable properties
* Add initial unit tests for verifying derived conformance
