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

Viper IDE refactoring: Version checking / updating #114

Closed
WissenIstNacht opened this issue Oct 22, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Closed

Viper IDE refactoring: Version checking / updating #114

WissenIstNacht opened this issue Oct 22, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Labels

Comments

@WissenIstNacht
Copy link

This issue pertains to the ongoing refactoring process #113.

Viper IDE used to check and update the verisons of tools (e.g. JRE, ViperServer, etc.) used by the extension. With the current refactoring of Viper IDE, the responsible code will be removed. It should therefore be reimplemented in the refactored version of this codebase.

Some of the relevant pieces of code that implement this functionality are:

public static checkSettings(viperToolsUpdated: boolean): Promise<boolean> {

public static updateViperTools(askForPermission: boolean) {

We want to propose two possible approaches to this refactoring step:

  1. Translate this functionality to Scala and implemented as part of ViperServer's LSP frontend. While this is more in line with the idea of the client/language server task repartition, it comes with some drawbacks. For example, it might lead to a situation where and outdated version of ViperServer needs to be started to update itself.

  2. Implement this in (the client side) of Viper IDE. In this approach, the tools could be checked and updated immediately on extension start, before any tool is actually used. It would also make it possible to reuse the code that currently implements these features.

@ArquintL
Copy link
Member

vs-verification-toolbox (at least partially) provides such functionality for clients: Dependency Installation

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants