Ensure the implicit `do` statement has a source
range that covers the `for` loop by changing the
source location for the initial binding. This ensures
we correctly detect the code completion child and
avoid skipping it.
To compute the expected type of a call pattern (which is the return type of the function if that call pattern is being used), we called `getTypeForCompletion` for the entire call, in the same way that we do for the code completion token. However, this pattern does not generally work. For the code completion token it worked because the code completion expression doesn’t have an inherent type and it inherits the type solely from its context. Calls, however, have an inherent return type and that type gets assigned as the `typeForCompletion`.
Implement targeted checks for the two most common cases where an expected type exists: If the call that we suggest call patterns for is itself an argument to another function or if it is used in a place that has a contextual type in the constraint system (eg. a variable binding or a `return` statement). This means that we no longer return `Convertible` for call patterns in some more complex scenarios. But given that this information was computed based on incorrect results and that in those cases all call patterns had a `Convertible` type relation, I think that’s acceptable. Fixing this would require recording more information in the constraints system, which is out-of-scope for now.
This removes the distinction between argument completions and postfix expr paren completions, which was meaningless since solver-based completion.
It then determines whether to suggest the entire function call pattern (with all argument labels) or only a single argument based on whether there are any existing arguments in the call.
For this to work properly, we need to improve parser recovery a little bit so that it parsers arguments after the code completion token properly.
This should make call pattern heuristics obsolete.
rdar://84809503
Ignore conversion score increases during code completion to make sure we don't filter solutions that might start receiving the best score based on a choice of the code completion token.
`complete_in_result_builder.swift` was modified in
0b9644a0d4 but ended up being merged
*after* 5d01a097e1 which removed the
`Identical` type relation entirely.
Replace the two added test cases with `Convertible` instead.
I think that preferring identical over convertible makes sense in e.g. C++ where we have implicit user-defined type conversions but since we don’t have them in Swift, I think the distinction doesn’t make too much sense, because if we have a `func foo(x: Int?)`, want don’t really want to prioritize variables of type `Int?` over `Int` Similarly if we have `func foo(x: View)`, we don’t want to prioritize a variable of type `View` over e.g. `Text`.
rdar://91349364
This requires navigating the constraint system solution to retrieve the argument type of the `buildBlock` call. The comments in the code should describe what I’m doing well enough.
rdar://83846531
When recovering from a parser error in an expression, we resumed parsing at a '{'. I assume this was because we wanted to continue inside e.g. an if-body if parsing the condition failed, but it's actually causing more issue because when parsing e.g.
```swift
expr + has - error +
functionTakesClosure {
}
```
we continue parsing at the `{` of the trailing closure, which is a completely garbage location to continue parsing.
The motivating example for this change was (in a result builder)
```swift
Text("\(island.#^COMPLETE^#)")
takeTrailingClosure {}
```
Here `Text(…)` has an error (because it contains a code completion token) and thus we skip `takeTrailingClosure`, effectively parsing
```swift
Text(….) {}
```
which the type checker wasn’t very happy with and thus refused to provide code completion. With this change, we completely drop `takeTrailingClosure {}`. The type checker is a lot happier with that.
Pattern matching in Swift can either be expression pattern matching by comparing two instances using the `~=` operator or using enum matching by matching the enum case and its associated types (+ tuple pattern matching, but that’s not relevant here). We currenlty only consider the expression pattern matching case for code completion. To provide enum pattern matching results, we thus need to have a `~=` operator between the code completion token and the match expression
For example, when we are completing
```swift
enum MyEnum {
case myCase(String)
}
switch x {
case .#^COMPLETE^#
}
```
then we are looking up all overloads of `~=` and try to match it to the call arguments `(<Code Completion Type>, MyEnum)`.
The way we currently get `#^COMPLETE^#` to offer members of `MyEnum`, is that we are trying to make sure that the `~=<T: Equatable>(T, T)` operator defined in the standard library is the best solution even though it has fixes associated with it. For that we need to carefully make sure to ignore other, more favourable overloads of `~=` in `filterSolutions` so that `~=<T: Equatable>(T, T)` has the best score.
This poses several problems:
- If the user defines a custom overload of `~=` that we don't prune when filtering solutions (e.g. `func ~=(pattern: OtherType, value: MyEnum) -> Bool`), it gets a better score than `~=<T: Equatable>(T, T)` and thus we only offer members of `OtherType` instead of members from `MyEnum`
- We are also suggesting static members of `MyEnum`, even though we can't pattern match them due to the lack of the `~=` operator.
If we detect that the completion expression is in a pattern matching position, also suggests all enum members of the matched type. This allows us to remove the hack which deliberately ignores certain overloads of `~=` since we no longer rely on `~=<T: Equatable>(T, T)`. It thus provides correct results in both of the above cases.
Fixes rdar://77263334 [SR-14547]
`CodeCompletioString::getName()` was used only as the sorting keys in
`CodeCompletionContext::sortCompletionResults()` which is effectively
deprecated. There's no reason to check them in `swift-ide-test`. Instead,
check `printCodeCompletionResultFilterName()` that is actually used for
filtering.
To describe fine grained priorities.
Introduce 'CodeCompletionFlair' that is a set of more descriptive flags for
prioritizing completion items. This aims to replace '
SemanticContextKind::ExpressionSpecific' which was a "catch all"
prioritization flag.
If a result builder body fails to typecheck, we currently don't provide any code completion results at all. Instead, try to recovery by type checking the expression in the result builder that conatins the code completion token on its own. This might be missing some information about contextual types but is preferrable over not providing any results at all.
Resolves rdar://78015510
