-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Better LSP conformance #5516
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Better LSP conformance #5516
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we only register for didSave if the client is watching the files? Aren't they separate things?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the client sets the
workspace/didChangeWatchedFiles/dynamicRegistration
capability tofalse
it means that the server cannot useclient/registerCapability
forworkspace/didChangeWatchedFiles
, doesn't it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think so... but
textDocument/didSave
isn't controlled byworkspace/didChangeWatchedFiles
. I'm not sure of the relationship here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, you are absolutely right, this is my mistake. I cannot understand how I managed to confuse different capabilities.
I already asked to rollback the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The spec is incredibly confusing around this sort of thing :( and you are correct in that we are not checking static/dynamic registrations correctly.
I think that this and the diagnostics bug I probably introduced a few days ago (and the call hierarchy issue I fixed awhile back) highlight the need for more precise tests on our LSP layer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@olegtk I tried Preview5. Same problem (
textDocument/didOpen
goes beforeinitialized
):I've tried to catch
textDocument/didOpen
via ILanguageClientMiddleLayer, wait until the server is fully initialized (ILanguageClient.OnServerInitializedAsync called) and resend didOpen notification. It works, but right aftertextDocument/didOpen
VS sendstextDocument/documentSymbol
(also beforeinitialized
) and I did not find a way to catch and delay this request (ILanguageClientMiddleLayer does not work).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, that's not a known issue... can you please point to your ILanguageClient implementation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have a fully functional ILanguageClient, just a quick sketch (enough to reproduce didOpen\initialized on my system):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@olegtk Perhaps it's not the best place to continue discussion. In case you need more details please drop me an email to [email protected].
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually you are right, @vsrs, it's a bug in VS LSP client. It's tracked now internally. Thanks!