Add two new fake editor commands: Formatting and OrganizeImports, which
delegate to textDocument/formatting and textDocument/codeAction
respectively. Use this in simple regtests, as well as on save.
Implementing this required fixing a broken assumption about text edits
in the editor: previously these edits were incrementally mutating the
buffer, but the correct implementation should simultaneously mutate the
buffer (i.e., all positions in an edit set refer to the starting buffer
state). This never mattered before because we were only operating on one
edit at a time.
Updates golang/go#36879
Change-Id: I6dec343c4e202288fa20c26df2fbafe9340a1bce
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/221539
Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rohan Challa <rohan@golang.org>
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>
