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

nixd/foldingRange: support textDocument/foldingRange #150

Open
Tracked by #165
inclyc opened this issue Jun 18, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
Tracked by #165

nixd/foldingRange: support textDocument/foldingRange #150

inclyc opened this issue Jun 18, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@inclyc
Copy link
Member

inclyc commented Jun 18, 2023

https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/lsp/3.17/specification/#textDocument_foldingRange

@inclyc inclyc added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 18, 2023
@inclyc inclyc added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Jun 21, 2023
@AkechiShiro
Copy link

Hi again @inclyc, what is needed to work on this first issue, it seems the previous assigned to me, got solved by someone else, they were more proactive than me.

For this one, there is the need to add support for the textDocument_foldingRange, there seems to be a list of exports FoldingRangeClientCapabilities and, adding support means that we have somewhere in our codebase all these capabilities ??

@inclyc
Copy link
Member Author

inclyc commented Sep 20, 2023

Hi again @inclyc, what is needed to work on this first issue, it seems the previous assigned to me, got solved by someone else, they were more proactive than me.

For this one, there is the need to add support for the textDocument_foldingRange, there seems to be a list of exports FoldingRangeClientCapabilities and, adding support means that we have somewhere in our codebase all these capabilities ??

Thanks for your contribution!

I'm working on a big diff #257 that will change the frontend, which will affect this issue. For now I think we need to wait for #257 before making any changes, to avoid git conflicts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants