Syntax highlight in hover

[Wck-iipi]

1. Does this PR affect any open issues?(Y/N) and add issue references (e.g. "fix #123", "re #123".):

• N
• Y [LFX PreTest] pretest for LFX LSP hover content #1304

2. What is the scope of this PR (e.g. component or file name):

/tools/src/LSP/src/hover.rs

3. Provide a description of the PR(e.g. more details, effects, motivations or doc link):

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Other
  It provides syntax highlight to hover text. It does so by using MarkedString::LanguageString and MarkedString::String.

This fixes the formatting as seen below.

However, this has a problem. It doesn't work on neovim unless you set the language as "kwt" instead of kcl. Therefore, please check if this is case for you as well.

4. Are there any breaking changes?(Y/N) and describe the breaking changes(e.g. more details, motivations or doc link):

• N
• Y

5. Are there test cases for these changes?(Y/N) select and add more details, references or doc links:

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Benchmark (add benchmark stats below)
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• Other

I have currently not written tests for this. Please tell me if this is the right solution and then I will write the test cases.

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[Peefy]

LGTM. Thanks for the contribution. Please sign the CLA, fix the test cases in CI and I will merge this PR.

[Wck-iipi]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[Wck-iipi]

@Peefy I was writing test for above code but I realised that I have to change tests for decorators, functions. But the problem with this is that the classifications I have done for these(except schema and attributes) don't cover all the cases. This will result in me writing some make-do tests for these and the person working after me will have to do extra work of removing those test-cases and then writing the correct code. Therefore, I was thinking if I should get the correct highlight for all data-types mentioned(Value and Decorators) and then writing test cases for the correct ones. Or should I just stick to original work.

[Peefy]

@Peefy I was writing test for above code but I realised that I have to change tests for decorators, functions. But the problem with this is that the classifications I have done for these(except schema and attributes) don't cover all the cases. This will result in me writing some make-do tests for these and the person working after me will have to do extra work of removing those test-cases and then writing the correct code. Therefore, I was thinking if I should get the correct highlight for all data-types mentioned(Value and Decorators) and then writing test cases for the correct ones. Or should I just stick to original work.

If you could add the correct display and testing for all hover content, that would be great. Unable to merge the PR in case of testing errors.

[Wck-iipi]

@Peefy @He1pa I have added hover for all data types. Please check if this is correct formatting. I am currently writing tests for these.

[Wck-iipi]

I have also written the required tests for all. Anything else to be done?

No.

If all tests pass in CI. I'll merge this PR.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9174095710

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 101 of 107 (94.39%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• 584 unchanged lines in 15 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.03%) to 71.087%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
kclvm/sema/src/ty/mod.rs	22	24	91.67%
kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/hover.rs	47	51	92.16%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
kclvm/parser/src/parser/stmt.rs	2	95.28%
kclvm/query/src/lib.rs	2	92.86%
kclvm/runtime/src/value/api.rs	2	0.31%
kclvm/evaluator/src/context.rs	3	81.46%
kclvm/parser/src/parser/module.rs	3	93.48%
kclvm/evaluator/src/proxy.rs	4	0.0%
kclvm/ast/src/walker.rs	8	42.06%
kclvm/runtime/src/api/kclvm.rs	9	44.53%
kclvm/parser/src/session/mod.rs	10	77.19%
kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/hover.rs	11	89.89%

Totals
Change from base Build 9156283670:	0.03%
Covered Lines:	53829
Relevant Lines:	75723

---

💛 - Coveralls

[Wck-iipi]

@Peefy All tests except hover::tests::dict_key_in_schema(which was added an hour ago) are passing in previous run. Should I change this test as well?

[Peefy]

@Peefy All tests except hover::tests::dict_key_in_schema(which was added an hour ago) are passing in previous run. Should I change this test as well?

Yes, thank you! 😄

[Wck-iipi]

Done @Peefy