Do you mean naming the scope something like clangd.meta.disable to make it clear it's a clangd extension?

(In that case, we might as well make it something more descriptive, like clangd.preprocessor.inactive. meta doesn't convey much information.)

sorry for the looong delay, I was OOO for a few weeks before.

the scope of this patch is not very clear, the changes touch two different code parts SymbolCollector, and Rename, and we are lacking tests for SymbolCollector. I'd suggest spliting this patch into smaller patches:

clang-format the code.

In D73109#1831399, @kadircet wrote:

Have you checked if this class is missing any other typelocs?

In D73088#1830960, @kbobyrev wrote:

It would also be great to have the original rename test from the linked issue since something might potentially go wrong in-between findExplicitReferences.

• add fixme
• add rename test

looks good, thanks.

@kuhnel, I think we should exclude from running clang-format on lint test files.

In D72746#1821097, @kbobyrev wrote:

The patch could be shorter and slightly less confusing if I preserved 1:1 RefKind::Implicit <-> index::SymbolKind::Implicit relation, but I thought we might want to keep RefKind being 1 byte so that we don't waste unnecessary memory.

(apologies, the FIXME may imply this approach...)

@ilya-biryukov thanks for taking it during my OOO, just a drive-by comment :)

address review comment -- simplify the unittest code.

thanks for the fast review.

I think we probably want to do the vice-versa thing (remove the inline keyword) in define-outline.

add a fixme.

address comments:

• don't emit the internal messages to users, llvm::Expected => llvm::Optional
• use the index of lexed array to calculate the adjustment cost.

address the review comment.

some minor fixes.

address reveiw comments.

Fix empty lines.

add more symbols.

use the assertion.

thanks, looks good with a few nits. I think the benchmark data doesn't correct any more with the latest patch, we don't increase number of symbols.

address comments

• re-define the concept of a near miss
• add metric for evaluate how good a near miss is

thanks, mostly good, my main concern is that the patch still relies on the CollectMacro and CollectMainFileSymbols option, see my comments below.

thanks.

btw, could you measure the increasing size of the index with this patch?

address review comments.

rebase

In D70727#1760485, @nridge wrote:

By the way, may I get permissions to assign issues to myself (and make other such metadata changes to issues) on github?