1
0
mirror of https://github.com/golang/go synced 2024-11-18 23:34:45 -07:00
go/internal/lsp/lsprpc/diagnostics_test.go

305 lines
7.0 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
// Copyright 2020 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
package lsprpc
import (
"context"
"errors"
"fmt"
"testing"
"time"
"golang.org/x/tools/internal/jsonrpc2/servertest"
"golang.org/x/tools/internal/lsp/cache"
"golang.org/x/tools/internal/lsp/fake"
"golang.org/x/tools/internal/lsp/protocol"
)
const exampleProgram = `
-- go.mod --
module mod
go 1.12
-- main.go --
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
fmt.Println("Hello World.")
}`
type testEnvironment struct {
editor *fake.Editor
ws *fake.Workspace
ts *servertest.Server
dw diagnosticsWatcher
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
}
func setupEnv(t *testing.T, txt string) (context.Context, testEnvironment, func()) {
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
t.Helper()
ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(context.Background(), 30*time.Second)
ws, err := fake.NewWorkspace("lsprpc", []byte(txt))
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
ss := NewStreamServer(cache.New(nil), false)
ts := servertest.NewServer(ctx, ss)
cc := ts.Connect(ctx)
editor, err := fake.NewConnectedEditor(ctx, ws, cc)
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
dw := newDiagWatcher(ws)
editor.Client().OnDiagnostics(dw.onDiagnostics)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
cleanup := func() {
cancel()
ts.Close()
ws.Close()
}
return ctx, testEnvironment{
editor: editor,
ws: ws,
ts: ts,
dw: dw,
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
}, cleanup
}
type diagnosticsWatcher struct {
diagnostics chan *protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams
ws *fake.Workspace
}
func newDiagWatcher(ws *fake.Workspace) diagnosticsWatcher {
return diagnosticsWatcher{
// Allow an arbitrarily large buffer, as we should never want onDiagnostics
// to block.
diagnostics: make(chan *protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams, 1000),
ws: ws,
}
}
func (w diagnosticsWatcher) onDiagnostics(_ context.Context, p *protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams) error {
w.diagnostics <- p
return nil
}
func (w diagnosticsWatcher) await(ctx context.Context, expected ...string) (map[string]*protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams, error) {
expectedSet := make(map[string]bool)
for _, e := range expected {
expectedSet[e] = true
}
got := make(map[string]*protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams)
for len(got) < len(expectedSet) {
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
return nil, ctx.Err()
case d := <-w.diagnostics:
pth := w.ws.URIToPath(d.URI)
if expectedSet[pth] {
got[pth] = d
}
}
}
return got, nil
}
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
func checkDiagnosticLocation(params *protocol.PublishDiagnosticsParams, filename string, line, col int) error {
if got, want := params.URI, filename; got != want {
return fmt.Errorf("got diagnostics for URI %q, want %q", got, want)
}
if len(params.Diagnostics) == 0 {
return errors.New("empty diagnostics")
}
diag := params.Diagnostics[0]
if diag.Range.Start.Line != float64(line) || diag.Range.Start.Character != float64(col) {
return fmt.Errorf("Diagnostics[0].Range.Start = %v, want (5,5)", diag.Range.Start)
}
return nil
}
func TestDiagnosticErrorInEditedFile(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
ctx, env, cleanup := setupEnv(t, exampleProgram)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
defer cleanup()
// Deleting the 'n' at the end of Println should generate a single error
// diagnostic.
edits := []fake.Edit{
{
Start: fake.Pos{Line: 5, Column: 11},
End: fake.Pos{Line: 5, Column: 12},
Text: "",
},
}
if err := env.editor.OpenFile(ctx, "main.go"); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := env.editor.EditBuffer(ctx, "main.go", edits); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
diags, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "main.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := checkDiagnosticLocation(diags["main.go"], env.ws.URI("main.go"), 5, 5); err != nil {
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
t.Fatal(err)
}
}
func TestSimultaneousEdits(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
ctx, env, cleanup := setupEnv(t, exampleProgram)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
defer cleanup()
// Set up a second editor session connected to the same server, using the
// same workspace.
conn2 := env.ts.Connect(ctx)
editor2, err := fake.NewConnectedEditor(ctx, env.ws, conn2)
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
dw2 := newDiagWatcher(env.ws)
editor2.Client().OnDiagnostics(dw2.onDiagnostics)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
// In editor #1, break fmt.Println as before.
edits1 := []fake.Edit{{
Start: fake.Pos{Line: 5, Column: 11},
End: fake.Pos{Line: 5, Column: 12},
Text: "",
}}
if err := env.editor.OpenFile(ctx, "main.go"); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := env.editor.EditBuffer(ctx, "main.go", edits1); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
// In editor #2 remove the closing brace.
edits2 := []fake.Edit{{
Start: fake.Pos{Line: 6, Column: 0},
End: fake.Pos{Line: 6, Column: 1},
Text: "",
}}
if err := editor2.OpenFile(ctx, "main.go"); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := editor2.EditBuffer(ctx, "main.go", edits2); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
diags1, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "main.go")
if err != nil {
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
t.Fatal(err)
}
diags2, err := dw2.await(ctx, "main.go")
if err != nil {
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := checkDiagnosticLocation(diags1["main.go"], env.ws.URI("main.go"), 5, 5); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
if err := checkDiagnosticLocation(diags2["main.go"], env.ws.URI("main.go"), 7, 0); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
}
}
const brokenFile = `package main
const Foo = "abc
`
func TestDiagnosticErrorInNewFile(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
ctx, env, cleanup := setupEnv(t, exampleProgram)
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
defer cleanup()
if err := env.editor.CreateBuffer(ctx, "broken.go", brokenFile); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
_, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "broken.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
}
// badPackage contains a duplicate definition of the 'a' const.
const badPackage = `
-- go.mod --
module mod
go 1.12
-- a.go --
package consts
const a = 1
-- b.go --
package consts
const a = 2
`
func TestDiagnosticClearingOnEdit(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
ctx, env, cleanup := setupEnv(t, badPackage)
defer cleanup()
if err := env.editor.OpenFile(ctx, "b.go"); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
_, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "a.go", "b.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
// In editor #2 remove the closing brace.
edits := []fake.Edit{{
Start: fake.Pos{Line: 2, Column: 6},
End: fake.Pos{Line: 2, Column: 7},
Text: "b",
}}
if err := env.editor.EditBuffer(ctx, "b.go", edits); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
diags, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "a.go", "b.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
for pth, d := range diags {
if len(d.Diagnostics) != 0 {
t.Errorf("non-empty diagnostics for %q", pth)
}
}
}
func TestDiagnosticClearingOnDelete(t *testing.T) {
t.Skip("skipping due to golang.org/issues/37049")
t.Parallel()
ctx, env, cleanup := setupEnv(t, badPackage)
defer cleanup()
if err := env.editor.OpenFile(ctx, "a.go"); err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
_, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "a.go", "b.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
env.ws.RemoveFile(ctx, "b.go")
// TODO(golang.org/issues/37049): here we only get diagnostics for a.go.
diags, err := env.dw.await(ctx, "a.go", "b.go")
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
for pth, d := range diags {
if len(d.Diagnostics) != 0 {
t.Errorf("non-empty diagnostics for %q", pth)
}
internal/lsp/fake: add fakes for testing editor interaction A lot of bug reports originating from LSP clients are related to either the timing or sequence of editor interactions with gopls (or at least they're originally reported this way). For example: "when I open a package and then create a new file, I lose diagnostics for existing files". These conditions are often hard to reproduce, and to isolate as either a gopls bug or a bug in the editor. Right now we're relying on govim integration tests to catch these regressions, but it's important to also have a testing framework that can exercise this functionality in-process. As a starting point this CL adds test fakes that implement a high level API for scripting editor interactions. A fake workspace can be used to sandbox file operations; a fake editor provides an interface for text editing operations; a fake LSP client can be used to connect the fake editor to a gopls instance. Some tests are added to the lsprpc package to demonstrate the API. The primary goal of these fakes should be to simulate an client that complies to the LSP spec. Put another way: if we have a bug report that we can't reproduce with our regression tests, it should either be a bug in our test fakes or a bug in the LSP client originating the report. I did my best to comply with the spec in this implementation, but it will certainly develop as we write more tests. We will also need to add to the editor API in the future for testing more language features. Updates golang/go#36879 Updates golang/go#34111 Change-Id: Ib81188683a7066184b8a254275ed5525191a2d68 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/217598 Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Rebecca Stambler <rstambler@golang.org>
2020-02-02 10:53:30 -07:00
}
}