Update JuliaLowering branch to master (with SyntaxGraph changes)

[mlechu]

JuliaLowering can run everything in compatibility mode at this point, so we may not even need jetls-hacking anymore. As of writing, this is a version bump to JuliaLang/JuliaLowering.jl#35, which is the master branch plus some syntax graph utilities. I've still created a separate jetls-2 branch for stability and in case you'd like to apply any changes (@aviatesk)

[mlechu]

The one thing this new branch is missing compared to jetls-hacking is the toplevel-expr-from-macro fix (mlechu/JuliaLowering.jl@80ba20a). This will be fixed on master eventually, but if it causes too much trouble in the meantime (it would probably present as @doc weirdness), we can apply this change too.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 68.56%. Comparing base (ed12df1) to head (b10161d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #235      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.57%   68.56%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines        3236     3235       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         2219     2218       -1     
  Misses       1017     1017              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[aviatesk]

Thanks for the update. I basically want to keep up with JL's #main, so I totally agree with using a branch based on the latest #main.

the toplevel-expr-from-macro fix (mlechu/JuliaLowering.jl@80ba20a)

I don't quite understand what cases this fix is for. Is it needed for the expansion of macro-defining-macrocalls, like what's being discussed in JuliaLang/julia#53515, or is it for a broader set of cases?

[mlechu]

The original change JuliaLang/julia#53515 is needed for correctness in macro-defining-macrocalls, yes. I think there might be other reasons we need to save the current expansion module in the (hygienic-scope ,expression ,module) form for later expansion, but I can't think of an easy example, so I'm not sure.

The reason this is relevant outside of edge cases is because :toplevel-returning macros have now adapted to this change, so may contain extra :escapes that cause errors if we don't add the expected hygienic-scopes. Easy to do what we've been doing for Expr, needs some thinking for SyntaxTree.

[aviatesk]

Got it. So the most straightforward and perceivable example is probably that an expression like @enum A a=1 can't be lowered. It seems the current #jetls-hacking can't do that either (though it might be a different error).

I'd always prefer to use #main, but it's totally possible that breaking changes could be made to JL's #main in the near future. For now, it might be better to keep using a custom branch, just like we've been doing. Would a new branch be better than just updating #jetls-hacking? Either way works for me.

Also please update test/Project.toml too. That's where the JL used by Pkg.test() is specified.

[mlechu]

Would a new branch be better than just updating #jetls-hacking? Either way works for me.

I needed a new branch to atomically update the lowering arguments here. Feel free to force-overwrite jetls-hacking and switch to back that if you ever need to make a similar breaking change.