Check Workspace Edit ResourceOps

[alibektas]

PR fixes #14780

[Veykril]

Regarding CI failure, the slow tests are failing because the capabilities are not set by default. You'll have to add them here https://github.com/Veykril/rust-analyzer/blob/00b9d9faf43936d0c4393870ffd14580078924d0/crates/rust-analyzer/tests/slow-tests/support.rs#L109-L144

[Veykril]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f8518a6 has been approved by Veykril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f8518a6 with merge 891331c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Veykril
Pushing 891331c to master...

[nemethf]

I'm just thinking aloud, but I wonder if it would be better not to offer a code-action to the client that would later lead to the error of "Client does not support {} capability". What do you think, @alibektas?

[alibektas]

This was how I first thought I would do it as finding which code actions can be shown to the client requires unnecessary computation. There were two aspects that spoke against it ( which I discussed with more experienced contributors and they actually dissuaded me to not do it the way you also propose ) let me list them :

1. The case where a client doesn't support the said ResourceOperations is not so common, thus making any clever approach possibly an overkill.
2. Future-proofness of the current version : Had we decided for the early catching of unusable code actions, we would have to make sure that we obey client's Resource Operation capabilities this is I believe more error prone.

So all in all it is doable but less favorable

[nemethf]

Thanks for the explanation. It all makes sense.