codeaction: loop label

[JonasFocke01]

Renaming of loop-labels seems not to work correctly for me rn. The loop-label gets not renamed in the loop itself, but the label on the loop does just fine, when invoking the codeaction from inside the loop.

rust-analyzer version: 2026-06-01

rustc version: 1.98.0-nightly (c1b22f44c 2026-06-17)

editor or extension: NeoVim; rust-analyzer installed via Mason

code snippet to reproduce:

'testlabel: for x in xes.iter() { // codeaction-rename on 'testlabel' does not rename 'testlabel' in the loop
    if x == 5 {
        continue 'testlabel; // codeaction-rename on 'testlabel' DOES rename 'testlabel' on the outer loop
    }
    println!("{x");
}

[mansiverma897993]

@JonasFocke01 i would like to work on it can you plz assign me this issue !!

[ChayimFriedman2]

@mansiverma897993 You can do @rustbot claim to assign an issue to yourself.

[mansiverma897993]

@rustbot claim

[ChayimFriedman2]

I fail to reproduce in VSCode. It might be a client issue or too old r-a version.

@mansiverma897993 This also mean that once you have a test for the patch, you need to verify it fails with the current version.

[mansiverma897993]

@ChayimFriedman2 I have raised PR here take a look and lemme know if any changes required!!

[mansiverma897993]

Hi @ChayimFriedman2,

You are correct! When the for loop is lowered successfully (with iterator traits in scope), the rename works fine on the unmodified master branch. The reporter's issue was likely due to their client/configuration or lowering failing locally in their environment (e.g. if the cargo project wasn't fully loaded, causing it to fall back to missing_expr() and skipping label definitions).

However, this PR still adds value by:

1. Adding explicit regression tests (test_rename_label_from_definition and test_rename_label_from_reference) using the exact code snippet from the bug report to guarantee this behavior doesn't regress.
2. Optimizing the search_scope for Definition::Label in crates/ide-db/src/search.rs to restrict search queries to the containing function/body scope (matching Definition::Local) instead of falling back to the entire file or module scope.

Let me know if any further changes are needed!

[ChayimFriedman2]

@mansiverma897993 I suspect that you're using LLMs to write your comments. Please note that our AI policy does not allow using AI to write GitHub comments.

[ChayimFriedman2]

@JonasFocke01 Please try to upgrade your rust-analyzer version, it is a month old.