ilya-biryukov added a comment. +1 to adding an option to drop arguments from snippets and removing the option for the fixes.
================ Comment at: clangd/tool/ClangdMain.cpp:197 +static llvm::cl::opt<bool> IncludeFixIts( + "include-fixits", ---------------- sammccall wrote: > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > sammccall wrote: > > > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > > > sammccall wrote: > > > > > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if we should make the `IncludeFixIts` option hidden? > > > > > > It currently only works for our YCM integration, VSCode and other > > > > > > clients break. > > > > > why would a user want to turn this on or off? > > > > Ideally, we want to have it always on. > > > > However, all editors interpret the results we return in different ways. > > > > This is a temporary option until we can define how text edits are > > > > handled by LSP. > > > > We filed the bugs, will dig them up on Monday. > > > Do we have any more details here? I'm still skeptical that exposing this > > > to end users will help at all, this seems likely that it should be a > > > capability if we do need it. > > No updates on the issue. Here it is: > > https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/543 > > > > Not sure capability is the right thing there, the problem is that > > additionalTextEdits are underspecified and implemented differently in every > > client. What we need is a fix in the protocol and fixes in all the clients. > > > > Sadly, this only works in YCM-based completer for now (of all we tested) > Sure, sounds like protocol fix is the long-term answer. I don't think adding > user-facing options are better than nothing. If YCM does the right thing and > we want to disable it for everyone not on YCM, we can add a > `textEditsAreAppliedInOrder` capability to the YCM completer and treat that > as an opt-in. It's not clear what the advantage of a user-facing flag over an > editor-facing capability is for this purpose. > > Mostly given LSP is unclear here it seems this feature isn't ready for > prime-time. > Could we fix it on our side by coalescing multiple edits into a single one? I agree, the feature is not very useful if it breaks everywhere. Removing the option and exploring other ways to do it LG. > Could we fix it on our side by coalescing multiple edits into a single one? We tried to combine additionalTextEdits into the main textEdit, that's what works in YCM. However, it did not help in other editors, they misinterpret a main textedit (each in a different way) if it affects anything before the start of the completion identifier, which is exactly the case for the only fix we have at the time, that is `. to ->`. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51214 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
