make source id optional when auto impl for new encoding

[xunilrj]

Description

This PR makes source_id optional when auto generation code. Specifically some contracts don't necessarily must have contract methods.

Checklist

• I have linked to any relevant issues.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have updated the documentation where relevant (API docs, the reference, and the Sway book).
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• I have added (or requested a maintainer to add) the necessary Breaking* or New Feature labels where relevant.
• I have done my best to ensure that my PR adheres to the Fuel Labs Code Review Standards.
• I have requested a review from the relevant team or maintainers.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for a0d134a

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.3±0.13ms	5.3±0.10ms	0.00%
code_lens	294.5±16.63ns	285.9±6.40ns	-2.92%
compile	6.1±0.05s	6.1±0.07s	0.00%
completion	4.8±0.08ms	4.9±0.11ms	+2.08%
did_change_with_caching	5.5±0.02s	5.5±0.03s	0.00%
document_symbol	1032.0±41.58µs	969.1±23.32µs	-6.09%
format	70.1±1.33ms	72.5±1.61ms	+3.42%
goto_definition	365.8±9.44µs	359.0±6.50µs	-1.86%
highlight	8.8±0.16ms	8.8±0.21ms	0.00%
hover	610.8±19.93µs	624.3±21.58µs	+2.21%
idents_at_position	122.8±0.73µs	123.7±1.08µs	+0.73%
inlay_hints	652.7±23.83µs	659.6±14.24µs	+1.06%
on_enter	493.3±12.99ns	482.0±14.44ns	-2.29%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.03ms	3.6±0.30ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	362.0±5.89µs	360.7±6.09µs	-0.36%
rename	9.3±0.19ms	9.4±0.21ms	+1.08%
semantic_tokens	1063.0±8.07µs	1072.3±18.44µs	+0.87%
token_at_position	354.6±1.51µs	359.9±2.02µs	+1.49%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.04ms	3.6±0.04ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	413.1±4.26µs	411.2±3.56µs	-0.46%
traverse	44.0±1.67ms	44.5±1.73ms	+1.14%

[tritao]

Specifically some contracts don't necessarily must have contract methods.

In theory I think we should always be able to get a valid module id, so even if they have no contracts, we should be able to get a module id. Is there maybe a span on the contract itself we could use?

[xunilrj]

In theory I think we should always be able to get a valid module id, so even if they have no contracts, we should be able to get a module id. Is there maybe a span on the contract itself we could use?

I changed it to use the module_id from the Module being type_checked.
But I still think we must not expect a module_id to exist in all cases, given that the data model supports None.

@tritao, what do you think?

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 5021ddb

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.3±0.12ms	5.6±0.15ms	+5.66%
code_lens	286.0±7.43ns	293.1±6.47ns	+2.48%
compile	6.4±0.15s	6.2±0.10s	-3.13%
completion	4.8±0.09ms	5.0±0.06ms	+4.17%
did_change_with_caching	5.9±0.06s	5.7±0.07s	-3.39%
document_symbol	952.9±17.69µs	1007.9±49.93µs	+5.77%
format	70.6±1.01ms	70.7±0.83ms	+0.14%
goto_definition	360.2±8.31µs	364.6±8.74µs	+1.22%
highlight	8.8±0.16ms	9.1±0.09ms	+3.41%
hover	597.6±11.34µs	623.9±20.21µs	+4.40%
idents_at_position	124.7±0.66µs	122.5±0.57µs	-1.76%
inlay_hints	655.5±15.34µs	674.7±21.84µs	+2.93%
on_enter	492.2±9.09ns	496.3±9.27ns	+0.83%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.06ms	3.8±0.02ms	+5.56%
prepare_rename	364.5±9.88µs	365.6±3.73µs	+0.30%
rename	9.2±0.05ms	9.8±0.19ms	+6.52%
semantic_tokens	1048.8±39.25µs	1066.1±74.67µs	+1.65%
token_at_position	358.9±2.80µs	361.7±5.35µs	+0.78%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.04ms	3.8±0.02ms	+5.56%
tokens_for_file	411.4±2.17µs	415.5±3.47µs	+1.00%
traverse	47.2±2.29ms	46.3±2.32ms	-1.91%

[tritao]

In theory I think we should always be able to get a valid module id, so even if they have no contracts, we should be able to get a module id. Is there maybe a span on the contract itself we could use?

I changed it to use the module_id from the Module being type_checked. But I still think we must not expect a module_id to exist in all cases, given that the data model supports None.

@tritao, what do you think?

New approach looks good. Not sure about None, in my undersanding we should always be compiling some kind of forc pkg, which should always have a valid module id, but without checking further I can't really say.

I think its good enough to merge like like though.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 83dbe54

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.4±0.17ms	5.4±0.16ms	0.00%
code_lens	287.0±5.55ns	288.5±8.45ns	+0.52%
compile	6.3±0.12s	6.4±0.08s	+1.59%
completion	5.0±0.18ms	5.1±0.25ms	+2.00%
did_change_with_caching	6.0±0.09s	5.8±0.05s	-3.33%
document_symbol	1061.1±11.81µs	1004.5±25.11µs	-5.33%
format	70.1±2.95ms	71.2±1.49ms	+1.57%
goto_definition	361.4±6.18µs	366.6±4.63µs	+1.44%
highlight	8.8±0.17ms	9.0±0.17ms	+2.27%
hover	666.6±23.83µs	655.7±12.36µs	-1.64%
idents_at_position	121.5±0.59µs	122.9±1.12µs	+1.15%
inlay_hints	659.0±29.56µs	660.9±22.37µs	+0.29%
on_enter	488.8±12.15ns	485.3±16.10ns	-0.72%
parent_decl_at_position	3.7±0.13ms	3.7±0.15ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	362.7±8.31µs	361.2±6.33µs	-0.41%
rename	9.4±0.14ms	9.4±0.33ms	0.00%
semantic_tokens	1212.8±10.28µs	1089.1±21.85µs	-10.20%
token_at_position	356.0±2.34µs	360.6±2.57µs	+1.29%
tokens_at_position	3.7±0.15ms	3.7±0.15ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	411.6±2.51µs	411.2±2.57µs	-0.10%
traverse	48.2±1.73ms	47.1±2.78ms	-2.28%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for ad86589

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
code_action	5.4±0.38ms	5.3±0.19ms	-1.85%
code_lens	291.9±12.23ns	287.5±8.32ns	-1.51%
compile	6.2±0.14s	6.1±0.10s	-1.61%
completion	4.8±0.03ms	4.8±0.14ms	0.00%
did_change_with_caching	5.5±0.02s	5.6±0.04s	+1.82%
document_symbol	969.5±20.55µs	1014.3±42.08µs	+4.62%
format	71.2±2.51ms	69.7±0.65ms	-2.11%
goto_definition	356.2±2.79µs	355.1±6.77µs	-0.31%
highlight	8.8±0.27ms	8.7±0.23ms	-1.14%
hover	634.0±12.73µs	611.0±18.31µs	-3.63%
idents_at_position	121.2±0.40µs	122.2±1.22µs	+0.83%
inlay_hints	644.1±26.87µs	654.8±24.62µs	+1.66%
on_enter	486.4±23.14ns	489.8±7.66ns	+0.70%
parent_decl_at_position	3.6±0.14ms	3.6±0.03ms	0.00%
prepare_rename	357.6±3.53µs	354.7±4.96µs	-0.81%
rename	9.3±0.27ms	9.2±0.29ms	-1.08%
semantic_tokens	1038.2±23.47µs	1038.7±10.34µs	+0.05%
token_at_position	350.0±2.39µs	348.8±2.81µs	-0.34%
tokens_at_position	3.6±0.02ms	3.6±0.01ms	0.00%
tokens_for_file	407.3±1.56µs	406.9±1.81µs	-0.10%
traverse	46.4±3.69ms	44.1±1.24ms	-4.96%