format documents when hover like in android studio

[tbm98]

in android studio

in vscode

[DanTup]

@bwilkerson this string comes from Hover.elementDescription which uses element.getDisplayString(). Android Studio seems to split this string up and insert the newlines/indenting here:

https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-plugins/blob/0f07ca63355d5530b441ca566c98f17c560e77f8/Dart/src/com/jetbrains/lang/dart/ide/documentation/DartDocUtil.java#L76

LSP could do similar (in handler_hover.dart) though I wonder if it may be better if ElementDisplayStringBuilder handled this and was passed some flag to tell it to prefer formatting over multiple lines (which initially would just be passed through from the LSP handler) - any thoughts?

[bwilkerson]

I wouldn't mind having the logic in ElementDisplayStringBuilder and eventually move IntelliJ over to using the version from server.

If we're going to do this, it would be nice to improve on the display in IntelliJ. It doesn't always produce nice results, as evidenced by this screenshot:

I'd propose that if the line is too long and needs to be split up that we break before the every parameter (including the first) and that we indent a fixed number of spaces, more like what the formatter produces. (Bonus points if we can find a way to use the formatter so that it stays consistent over time.)

[DanTup]

Makes sense to me. Some questions:

1. Should it include trailing commas? If it always included them, then short methods would also be wrapped. If not, the last arg would go on the line with the paren. We could conditionally include them (eg. if string is over a certain length) but that feels a bit weird if the goal is to let the formatter do its thing.
   (another thought I had was to use the underlying source, though I'm not sure if that's accessible or makes sense either)
2. Should display strings always be formatted this way, or opt-in so callers of getDisplayString() can explicitly choose to accept multiline displays?

[bwilkerson]

Should it include trailing commas?

Yes, the underlying source is available. I don't know whether we want to use it though because there could be additional text in it that we don't want to include in the output (comments, annotations on parameters, and default values come to mind).

As for using the formatter, I'm not actually certain that that's what we want to do. It was just a brainstorming idea. If we're composing the text to be formatted then it might be better to just control the format directly. We can't, for example, include the "(new) " or "(const) " prefix text when passing it to the formatter, so that might throw off the results. Using the formatter is probably more work than it's worth.

Should display strings always be formatted this way, or opt-in ...

I don't know. I'd have to look at where getDisplayString is being called to know what impact that decision would have. For example, if we're using it to compose diagnostic messages, then I think we need to preserve an unformatted version because some clients probably can't display multi-line messages.

[DanTup]

We can't, for example, include the "(new) " or "(const) " prefix text when passing it to the formatter, so that might throw off the results. Using the formatter is probably more work than it's worth.

Yeah, good point.

if we're using it to compose diagnostic messages, then I think we need to preserve an unformatted version because some clients probably can't display multi-line messages

I'm not sure about diagnostics, but it is called in quite a few places - some of which I'm not certain where they'd be used (for example it's included in some of the protocol messages back to the client). I think it might be better to keep opt-in and just enable in specific places we know can handle it (and if over time this becomes all of them, the option could always be removed).

[bwilkerson]

I think it might be better to keep opt-in and just enable in specific places ...

SGTM

[DanTup]

I've got a change at https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/202962/, here are some examples of how it looks (including the bad IntelliJ example from above):

Right now it's enabled only for Hovers in LSP, and only for the main executable elements (function types within are kept on a single line.. I did initially wrap them and further indent, but it didn't seem like an improvement having multiple indent levels).

[tbm98]

It looks good and easier to read. Thank you :D
I think function types within are kept on a single line is better separate them into multiple lines, and almost case they are not too long.

[bwilkerson]

@alexander-doroshko @jwren Any interest in having this text formatted on server for IntelliJ?

[alexander-doroshko]

Any interest in having this text formatted on server for IntelliJ?

Sure. I'm not aware of any reasons not to be interested in this :). I'm ready to add a switch to the Dart plugin to tweak behavior based on the SDK version.

[DanTup]

@alexander-doroshko is there anywhere other than hovers that you also do this formatting? If so, it may be worth enabling them in those places at the same time (so far for LSP I only enabled it for hovers).