A Swift protocol requirement — a bodyless `func generate() -> String`
inside a protocol — was absent from the graph entirely. Swift codebases
are heavily protocol-driven, so the requirement is very often the
declaration a reader is looking for, and "who declares generate()" had no
answer.
Three edits deliver it: protocol_body joins the class-body types so a
protocol's members are walked at all; protocol_function_declaration joins
swift_func_types, because extract_class_methods gates on that set and
would otherwise walk the requirement and discard it; and both name
resolvers accept the node, which has the same simple_identifier shape as
function_declaration.
Distilled from #613 by xbsjason. That PR also carried an enum/struct half
whose two assertions fail on CI: tree-sitter-swift has no
struct_declaration or enum_declaration node type (it models both as
class_declaration), so the corresponding swift_class_types entries are
inert and a bare enum is still labeled Class. That is a real pre-existing
modelling gap, left untouched here and now documented at the dead entries
rather than silently deleted.
Also dropped from the original: a find_first_descendant_by_kind rescue in
extract_class_methods. Removing it changes no test outcome once the
function-type entry is present, so it was carrying nothing.
Advances #43.
Co-authored-by: xbsjason <xbsjason@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Vogel <martin.vogel.tech@gmail.com>
Martin Vogel
5cabeb4b10