-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
Implement missing 3.17 api #362
Conversation
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.
Looks good. Do you expect more missing api adaptations? Should we check more carefully before releasing a new version (beta or rc before a major release/change)?
That was my bad, I wasn't attentive enough, I just looked at the code and didn't see it at first. I took a look at the changelog to identify the missing parts:
Btw, this file is VERY hard to maintain, I tried to be close as possible to the vscode/vscode-languageclient code but it will never be exactly the same, I don't know if there is any better way to be less hacky. Also, it's very hard to test because there is a lot of possible values/use cases and no implementations exist when the new protocol version just got released) Btw2, we only support a subset of the features declared supported by the BaseLanguageClient, we should probably disable some feature we don't support, I'll have a look at it) |
@CGNonofr sorry, I was out of town/AFK for a couple of days (longer weekend).
Yes, I see the problem and we don't have any unit tests and I don't see how we could establish those easily (it is a huge undertaking time wise). Plus, test don't necessarily help at this specific point, because you need to write them, too. They mostly help afterwards to verify the implementation / usage of the API afterwards. We could establish a review plan, e.g. a markdown file listing what to check (change logs, specific files, etc.) and we both do this before merging. This is also helpful for me to understand what you reviewed / how you did this. |
Good idea! We should probably write this somewhere (contributing.md)? because we'll forgot about it when a new LSP version will come out (probably in some years) |
Yes, and we could expand this to other things as well, like new monaco-editor version is released, check this and that ... |
No description provided.