From e4af9f6d8a4587fc66d13db4c10ad9260d813ed3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aleksey Kladov Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 15:49:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Reorgonise extensions docs --- docs/dev/lsp-extensions.md | 98 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/dev/lsp-extensions.md b/docs/dev/lsp-extensions.md index 158d3c599a6..1cc51410b7f 100644 --- a/docs/dev/lsp-extensions.md +++ b/docs/dev/lsp-extensions.md @@ -3,7 +3,9 @@ This document describes LSP extensions used by rust-analyzer. It's a best effort document, when in doubt, consult the source (and send a PR with clarification ;-) ). We aim to upstream all non Rust-specific extensions to the protocol, but this is not a top priority. -All capabilities are enabled via `experimental` field of `ClientCapabilities`. +All capabilities are enabled via `experimental` field of `ClientCapabilities` or `ServerCapabilities`. +Requests which we hope to upstream live under `experimental/` namespace. +Requests, which are likely to always remain specific to `rust-analyzer` are under `rust-analyzer/` namespace. ## Snippet `TextEdit` @@ -38,6 +40,53 @@ At the moment, rust-analyzer guarantees that only a single edit will have `Inser * Where exactly are `SnippetTextEdit`s allowed (only in code actions at the moment)? * Can snippets span multiple files (so far, no)? +## `CodeAction` Groups + +**Issue:** https://github.com/microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/994 + +**Client Capability:** `{ "codeActionGroup": boolean }` + +If this capability is set, `CodeAction` returned from the server contain an additional field, `group`: + +```typescript +interface CodeAction { + title: string; + group?: string; + ... +} +``` + +All code-actions with the same `group` should be grouped under single (extendable) entry in lightbulb menu. +The set of actions `[ { title: "foo" }, { group: "frobnicate", title: "bar" }, { group: "frobnicate", title: "baz" }]` should be rendered as + +``` +💡 + +-------------+ + | foo | + +-------------+-----+ + | frobnicate >| bar | + +-------------+-----+ + | baz | + +-----+ +``` + +Alternatively, selecting `frobnicate` could present a user with an additional menu to choose between `bar` and `baz`. + +### Example + +```rust +fn main() { + let x: Entry/*cursor here*/ = todo!(); +} +``` + +Invoking code action at this position will yield two code actions for importing `Entry` from either `collections::HashMap` or `collection::BTreeMap`, grouped under a single "import" group. + +### Unresolved Questions + +* Is a fixed two-level structure enough? +* Should we devise a general way to encode custom interaction protocols for GUI refactorings? + ## Join Lines **Issue:** https://github.com/microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/992 @@ -123,50 +172,3 @@ SSR with query `foo($a:expr, $b:expr) ==>> ($a).foo($b)` will transform, eg `foo * Probably needs search without replace mode * Needs a way to limit the scope to certain files. - -## `CodeAction` Groups - -**Issue:** https://github.com/microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/994 - -**Client Capability:** `{ "codeActionGroup": boolean }` - -If this capability is set, `CodeAction` returned from the server contain an additional field, `group`: - -```typescript -interface CodeAction { - title: string; - group?: string; - ... -} -``` - -All code-actions with the same `group` should be grouped under single (extendable) entry in lightbulb menu. -The set of actions `[ { title: "foo" }, { group: "frobnicate", title: "bar" }, { group: "frobnicate", title: "baz" }]` should be rendered as - -``` -💡 - +-------------+ - | foo | - +-------------+-----+ - | frobnicate >| bar | - +-------------+-----+ - | baz | - +-----+ -``` - -Alternatively, selecting `frobnicate` could present a user with an additional menu to choose between `bar` and `baz`. - -### Example - -```rust -fn main() { - let x: Entry/*cursor here*/ = todo!(); -} -``` - -Invoking code action at this position will yield two code actions for importing `Entry` from either `collections::HashMap` or `collection::BTreeMap`, grouped under a single "import" group. - -### Unresolved Questions - -* Is a fixed two-level structure enough? -* Should we devise a general way to encode custom interaction protocols for GUI refactorings?