Skip to content
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

Inform about conflict with the Clojure extension #1427

Closed
PEZ opened this issue Dec 8, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1428
Closed

Inform about conflict with the Clojure extension #1427

PEZ opened this issue Dec 8, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1428

Comments

@PEZ
Copy link
Collaborator

PEZ commented Dec 8, 2021

It is not uncommon for VS Code clojurians to try some different extension, among them Calva. It is probably extra common to try the Clojure extension early. However as #1426 shows, it overlaps with a lot of what Calva provides, and it is not clear to users that they might be using the nREPL services from there, rather than from Calva. Which creates confusion in a lot of ways.

We should consider to issue a warning when we see that the Clojure extension is active while Calva's nREPL services are enabled.

There is also Clover, but the overlap is much smaller and I think it is often a much more deliberate decision to use its REPL instead of Calva's.

@PEZ PEZ mentioned this issue Dec 8, 2021
12 tasks
@PEZ PEZ linked a pull request Dec 8, 2021 that will close this issue
12 tasks
@bpringe
Copy link
Member

bpringe commented Dec 11, 2021

I think the intention was for this to be closed. Reopen if I'm mistaken.

@bpringe bpringe closed this as completed Dec 11, 2021
@PEZ
Copy link
Collaborator Author

PEZ commented Dec 11, 2021

We haven't released the fix yet, have we?

@bpringe bpringe reopened this Dec 11, 2021
@bpringe
Copy link
Member

bpringe commented Dec 11, 2021

My mistake

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants