Neogen sync/update [feature request]

[smackesey]

Sometimes the source material for a generated annotation might be changed after the annotation has been generated. In these cases, it would be very useful to have a command (neogen.sync()?) to update an existing annotation. For example:

def foo(bar):
     return bar

Run neogen.generate():

def foo(bar):
    """

    Args:
        bar (): 

    Returns:
        
    """
    return bar

But now suppose I add type annotations so the top line reads:

def foo(bar: int):

Then the hypothetical neogen.sync() would do this:

def foo(bar: int):
    """

    Args:
        bar (int): 

    Returns:
        
    """
    return bar

[danymat]

what about just re-doing Neogen command and it does it automatically ? So no need of a sync function?

This will not work because it'll override the annotation

[danymat]

Hmm it seems difficult to implement, as how we could retrieve easily the annotation and see if it has been changed

Do you have any ideas ? Maybe with some regex

[smackesey]

Really what's needed is a treesitter grammar for the annotations themselves-- so it would be a feature that relatively few languages support, but IMO definitely worth it for popular ones.

I could implement this for Python google-style docstrings.

[danymat]

Really what's needed is a treesitter grammar for the annotations themselves-- so it would be a feature that relatively few languages support, but IMO definitely worth it for popular ones.

You mean creating a grammar for annotations ? That could work indeed, but as of right now, we don't have any.

[max397574]

you could retrieve the old annotation, create the new one, compare the "fields", see where values are set, set the im the new annotation -> profit :)

[danymat]

you could retrieve the old annotation

the problem is: how do you know something is the old annotation ? That's why having a parser for annotations could be a huge benefit, but I don't think it's something easily feasible

[max397574]

you just get the comment about the function and check if it's kinda like the annotations format e.g. ---in lua

[danymat]

you just get the comment about the function and check if it's kinda like the annotations format e.g. ---in lua

Even though, this check is not sufficient, take a look:

--- this is not meant to be an annotation
function test()
end

If we allow this type of behavior, this will mean that everything on top of the function, that has --- will be deleted and replaced with new annotation. I don't think this is a good idea, because the user should be expected to clearly know the result of the command before typing it out.

[max397574]

hmmm

[danymat]

One way to handle this, would be to keep the Information about created annotation (with marks)
But that would mean that exiting neovim will lose the informations

[sputnick1124]

For reference, it seems like this is possible with bare luasnip (at least for the active session, exiting neovim still poses a problem). LuaSnip's README shows a GIF of this working, but the source code for the demo even admits that it is ugly and fragile. I'm not sure what the existing neogen+luasnip integration looks like, but I'm wondering if some combination of setting history = true in luasnip and using restoreNode would get close?

[tan-wei]

It would be a great feature, but I think it is not that easy to implement. To implement this, a better way is to parse the generated comments before, and then we can do a sync, which means additional parser should be implemented. A special mark could be a quick (but dirty) way...