[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
//===--- Quality.cpp --------------------------------------------*- C++-*-===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
|
|
|
|
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
#include "Quality.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "index/Index.h"
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "clang/AST/ASTContext.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "clang/Basic/SourceManager.h"
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "clang/Sema/CodeCompleteConsumer.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/FormatVariadic.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/MathExtras.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace clang {
|
|
|
|
namespace clangd {
|
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
static bool hasDeclInMainFile(const Decl &D) {
|
|
|
|
auto &SourceMgr = D.getASTContext().getSourceManager();
|
|
|
|
for (auto *Redecl : D.redecls()) {
|
|
|
|
auto Loc = SourceMgr.getSpellingLoc(Redecl->getLocation());
|
|
|
|
if (SourceMgr.isWrittenInMainFile(Loc))
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
void SymbolQualitySignals::merge(const CodeCompletionResult &SemaCCResult) {
|
|
|
|
SemaCCPriority = SemaCCResult.Priority;
|
|
|
|
if (SemaCCResult.Availability == CXAvailability_Deprecated)
|
|
|
|
Deprecated = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SymbolQualitySignals::merge(const Symbol &IndexResult) {
|
|
|
|
References = std::max(IndexResult.References, References);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
float SymbolQualitySignals::evaluate() const {
|
|
|
|
float Score = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This avoids a sharp gradient for tail symbols, and also neatly avoids the
|
|
|
|
// question of whether 0 references means a bad symbol or missing data.
|
|
|
|
if (References >= 3)
|
|
|
|
Score *= std::log(References);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (SemaCCPriority)
|
|
|
|
// Map onto a 0-2 interval, so we don't reward/penalize non-Sema results.
|
|
|
|
// Priority 80 is a really bad score.
|
|
|
|
Score *= 2 - std::min<float>(80, SemaCCPriority) / 40;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Deprecated)
|
2018-05-18 21:18:41 +08:00
|
|
|
Score *= 0.1f;
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return Score;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raw_ostream &operator<<(raw_ostream &OS, const SymbolQualitySignals &S) {
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("=== Symbol quality: {0}\n", S.evaluate());
|
|
|
|
if (S.SemaCCPriority)
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("\tSemaCCPriority: {0}\n", S.SemaCCPriority);
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("\tReferences: {0}\n", S.References);
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("\tDeprecated: {0}\n", S.Deprecated);
|
|
|
|
return OS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-06 00:30:25 +08:00
|
|
|
static SymbolRelevanceSignals::AccessibleScope
|
|
|
|
ComputeScope(const NamedDecl &D) {
|
|
|
|
bool InClass;
|
|
|
|
for (const DeclContext *DC = D.getDeclContext(); !DC->isFileContext();
|
|
|
|
DC = DC->getParent()) {
|
|
|
|
if (DC->isFunctionOrMethod())
|
|
|
|
return SymbolRelevanceSignals::FunctionScope;
|
|
|
|
InClass = InClass || DC->isRecord();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (InClass)
|
|
|
|
return SymbolRelevanceSignals::ClassScope;
|
|
|
|
// This threshold could be tweaked, e.g. to treat module-visible as global.
|
|
|
|
if (D.getLinkageInternal() < ExternalLinkage)
|
|
|
|
return SymbolRelevanceSignals::FileScope;
|
|
|
|
return SymbolRelevanceSignals::GlobalScope;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SymbolRelevanceSignals::merge(const Symbol &IndexResult) {
|
|
|
|
// FIXME: Index results always assumed to be at global scope. If Scope becomes
|
|
|
|
// relevant to non-completion requests, we should recognize class members etc.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
void SymbolRelevanceSignals::merge(const CodeCompletionResult &SemaCCResult) {
|
|
|
|
if (SemaCCResult.Availability == CXAvailability_NotAvailable ||
|
|
|
|
SemaCCResult.Availability == CXAvailability_NotAccessible)
|
|
|
|
Forbidden = true;
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (SemaCCResult.Declaration) {
|
|
|
|
// We boost things that have decls in the main file.
|
|
|
|
// The real proximity scores would be more general when we have them.
|
|
|
|
float DeclProximity =
|
|
|
|
hasDeclInMainFile(*SemaCCResult.Declaration) ? 1.0 : 0.0;
|
|
|
|
ProximityScore = std::max(DeclProximity, ProximityScore);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-06-06 00:30:25 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Declarations are scoped, others (like macros) are assumed global.
|
|
|
|
if (SemaCCResult.Kind == CodeCompletionResult::RK_Declaration)
|
|
|
|
Scope = std::min(Scope, ComputeScope(*SemaCCResult.Declaration));
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
float SymbolRelevanceSignals::evaluate() const {
|
2018-06-06 00:30:25 +08:00
|
|
|
float Score = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
if (Forbidden)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-06-06 00:30:25 +08:00
|
|
|
Score *= NameMatch;
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
// Proximity scores are [0,1] and we translate them into a multiplier in the
|
|
|
|
// range from 1 to 2.
|
|
|
|
Score *= 1 + ProximityScore;
|
2018-06-06 00:30:25 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Symbols like local variables may only be referenced within their scope.
|
|
|
|
// Conversely if we're in that scope, it's likely we'll reference them.
|
|
|
|
if (Query == CodeComplete) {
|
|
|
|
// The narrower the scope where a symbol is visible, the more likely it is
|
|
|
|
// to be relevant when it is available.
|
|
|
|
switch (Scope) {
|
|
|
|
case GlobalScope:
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case FileScope:
|
|
|
|
Score *= 1.5;
|
|
|
|
case ClassScope:
|
|
|
|
Score *= 2;
|
|
|
|
case FunctionScope:
|
|
|
|
Score *= 4;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-04 22:50:59 +08:00
|
|
|
return Score;
|
[clangd] Extract scoring/ranking logic, and shave yaks.
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
2018-05-16 01:43:27 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
raw_ostream &operator<<(raw_ostream &OS, const SymbolRelevanceSignals &S) {
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("=== Symbol relevance: {0}\n", S.evaluate());
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("\tName match: {0}\n", S.NameMatch);
|
|
|
|
OS << formatv("\tForbidden: {0}\n", S.Forbidden);
|
|
|
|
return OS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
float evaluateSymbolAndRelevance(float SymbolQuality, float SymbolRelevance) {
|
|
|
|
return SymbolQuality * SymbolRelevance;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Produces an integer that sorts in the same order as F.
|
|
|
|
// That is: a < b <==> encodeFloat(a) < encodeFloat(b).
|
|
|
|
static uint32_t encodeFloat(float F) {
|
|
|
|
static_assert(std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559, "");
|
|
|
|
constexpr uint32_t TopBit = ~(~uint32_t{0} >> 1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Get the bits of the float. Endianness is the same as for integers.
|
|
|
|
uint32_t U = FloatToBits(F);
|
|
|
|
// IEEE 754 floats compare like sign-magnitude integers.
|
|
|
|
if (U & TopBit) // Negative float.
|
|
|
|
return 0 - U; // Map onto the low half of integers, order reversed.
|
|
|
|
return U + TopBit; // Positive floats map onto the high half of integers.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::string sortText(float Score, llvm::StringRef Name) {
|
|
|
|
// We convert -Score to an integer, and hex-encode for readability.
|
|
|
|
// Example: [0.5, "foo"] -> "41000000foo"
|
|
|
|
std::string S;
|
|
|
|
llvm::raw_string_ostream OS(S);
|
|
|
|
write_hex(OS, encodeFloat(-Score), llvm::HexPrintStyle::Lower,
|
|
|
|
/*Width=*/2 * sizeof(Score));
|
|
|
|
OS << Name;
|
|
|
|
OS.flush();
|
|
|
|
return S;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace clangd
|
|
|
|
} // namespace clang
|