to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
The new guideline is to qualify with 'llvm::' explicitly both in
'.h' and '.cpp' files. This simplifies moving the code between
header and source files and is easier to keep consistent.
llvm-svn: 350531
Our testing didn't reflect reality: live clangd almost always uses a
preamble, and sometimes the preamble behaves differently.
This patch fixes a common test helper to be more realistic.
Preamble doesn't preserve information about which tokens come from the
command-line (this gets inlined into a source file). So remove logic
that attempts to treat symbols with such names differently.
A SymbolCollectorTest tries to verify that locals in headers are not
indexed, with preamble enabled this is only meaningful for locals of
auto-typed functions (otherwise the bodies aren't parsed).
Tests were relying on the fact that the findAnyDecl helper actually did expose
symbols from headers. Resolve by making all these functions consistently
able to find symbols in headers/preambles.
llvm-svn: 346488
Standardize on the most common namespace setup in our *.cpp files:
using namespace llvm;
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
void foo(StringRef) { ... }
And remove redundant llvm:: qualifiers. (Except for cases like
make_unique where this causes problems with std:: and ADL).
This choice is pretty arbitrary, but some broad consistency is nice.
This is going to conflict with everything. Sorry :-/
Squash the other configurations:
A)
using namespace llvm;
using namespace clang;
using namespace clangd;
void clangd::foo(StringRef);
This is in some of the older files. (It prevents accidentally defining a
new function instead of one in the header file, for what that's worth).
B)
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
void foo(llvm::StringRef) { ... }
This is fine, but in practice the using directive often gets added over time.
C)
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
using namespace llvm; // inside the namespace
This was pretty common, but is a bit misleading: name lookup preferrs
clang::clangd::foo > clang::foo > llvm:: foo (no matter where the using
directive is).
llvm-svn: 344850
Summary:
These are often not expected to be used directly e.g.
```
TEST_F(Fixture, X) {
^ // "Fixture_X_Test" expanded in the macro should be down ranked.
}
```
Only doing this for sema for now, as such symbols are mostly coming from sema
e.g. gtest macros expanded in the main file. We could also add a similar field
for the index symbol.
Reviewers: sammccall
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53374
llvm-svn: 344736
Summary:
This should make all-scope completion more usable. Scope proximity for
indexes will be added in followup patch.
Reviewers: sammccall
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53131
llvm-svn: 344688
Summary:
The following are metrics for explicit member access completions. There is no
noticeable impact on other completion types.
Before:
EXPLICIT_MEMBER_ACCESS
Total measurements: 24382
All measurements: MRR: 62.27 Top10: 80.21% Top-100: 94.48%
Full identifiers: MRR: 98.81 Top10: 99.89% Top-100: 99.95%
0-5 filter len:
MRR: 13.25 46.31 62.47 67.77 70.40 81.91
Top-10: 29% 74% 84% 91% 91% 97%
Top-100: 67% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100%
After:
EXPLICIT_MEMBER_ACCESS
Total measurements: 24382
All measurements: MRR: 63.18 Top10: 80.58% Top-100: 95.07%
Full identifiers: MRR: 98.79 Top10: 99.89% Top-100: 99.95%
0-5 filter len:
MRR: 13.84 48.39 63.55 68.83 71.28 82.64
Top-10: 30% 75% 84% 91% 91% 97%
Top-100: 70% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100%
* Top-N: wanted result is found in the first N completion results.
* MRR: Mean reciprocal rank.
Remark: the change seems to have minor positive impact. Although the improvement
is relatively small, down-ranking non-instance members in instance member access
should reduce noise in the completion results.
Reviewers: sammccall
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49543
llvm-svn: 337681
Having `using qualified::name;` for some symbol is an important signal
for clangd code completion as the user is more likely to use such
symbol. This patch helps to uprank the relevant symbols by saving
UsingShadowDecl in the new field of CodeCompletionResult and checking
whether the corresponding UsingShadowDecl is located in the main file
later in ClangD code completion routine. While the relative importance
of such signal is a subject to change in the future, this patch simply
bumps DeclProximity score to the value of 1.0 which should be enough for
now.
The patch was tested using
`$ ninja check-clang check-clang-tools`
No unexpected failures were noticed after running the relevant testsets.
Reviewers: sammccall, ioeric
Subscribers: MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49012
llvm-svn: 336810
Summary:
We now compute a distance from the main file to the symbol header, which
is a weighted count of:
- some number of #include traversals from source file --> included file
- some number of FS traversals from file --> parent directory
- some number of FS traversals from parent directory --> child file/dir
This calculation is performed in the appropriate URI scheme.
This means we'll get some proximity boost from header files in main-file
contexts, even when these are in different directory trees.
This extended file proximity model is not yet incorporated in the index
interface/implementation.
Reviewers: ioeric
Subscribers: mgorny, ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48441
llvm-svn: 336177
Summary:
Injected names being ranked too high was just a bug.
The high boost for keywords was intended, but was too much given how useless
keywords are. We should probably boost them on a case-by-case basis eventually.
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48368
llvm-svn: 335723
Summary:
Also move unittest: URI scheme to TestFS so that it can be shared by
different tests.
Reviewers: sammccall
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47935
llvm-svn: 334810
Summary: These have few signals other than being keywords, so the boost is high.
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48083
llvm-svn: 334711
Summary:
Now we have most of Sema's code completion signals incorporated in Quality,
which will allow us to give consistent ranking to sema/index results.
Therefore we can/should stop using Sema priority as an explicit signal.
This fixes some issues like namespaces always having a terrible score.
The most important missing signals are:
- Really dumb/rarely useful completions like:
SomeStruct().^SomeStruct
SomeStruct().^operator=
SomeStruct().~SomeStruct()
We already filter out destructors, this patch adds injected names and
operators to that list.
- type matching the expression context.
Ilya has a plan to add this in a way that's compatible with indexes
(design doc should be shared real soon now!)
Reviewers: ioeric
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47871
llvm-svn: 334192
Summary:
This signal is considered a relevance rather than a quality signal because it's
dependent on the query (the fact that it's completion, and implicitly the query
context).
This is part of the effort to reduce reliance on Sema priority, so we can have
consistent ranking between Index and Sema results.
Reviewers: ioeric
Subscribers: klimek, ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47762
llvm-svn: 334026
Summary:
Code completion scoring was embedded in CodeComplete.cpp, which is bad:
- awkward to test. The mechanisms (extracting info from index/sema) can be
unit-tested well, the policy (scoring) should be quantitatively measured.
Neither was easily possible, and debugging was hard.
The intermediate signal struct makes this easier.
- hard to reuse. This is a bug in workspaceSymbols: it just presents the
results in the index order, which is not sorted in practice, it needs to rank
them!
Also, index implementations care about scoring (both query-dependent and
independent) in order to truncate result lists appropriately.
The main yak shaved here is the build() function that had 3 variants across
unit tests is unified in TestTU.h (rather than adding a 4th variant).
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: klimek, mgorny, ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous, mgrang, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46524
llvm-svn: 332378
Chandler Carruth