In preparation for later changes to the implementation of the workspace
Symbol method, we add the Symbol method to fake.Editor. This requires
the definition of a number of associated fake types (editor-friendly,
byte-offset-based versions of protocol UTF16-based types) for example
fake.SymbolInformation and the types it references.
We also implement a basic regtest for the Symbol method, exposing Symbol
on regtest.Env like other LSP server methods. To aid with the writing of
Symbol result assertions, we provide some helper functions to simplify
the process of defining matches that are evaluated against the result
set.
Change-Id: If73b493e1e791c8201423a303af8041f5a15ccfc
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/228121
Run-TryBot: Paul Jolly <paul@myitcv.org.uk>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
Expressing regtests in terms of textual coordinates is hard to read: the
reader ends up counting lines and characters to understand the text edit
or assertion.
To address, this, add two new functions for fake.Editor: RegexpSearch
and RegexpReplace, as well as a symmetric RegexpSearch function for
workspace files and wrappers for regtext.Env.
This allows expressing edits as well as buffer locations in terms of
easily scannable regexps.
An alternative solution to this problem is to integrate markers ala
packagestest. I tried this, but it ended up being cumbersome to
implement and less usable than regexps, due to the static nature of
markers: after the buffer has been edited all markers must be
updated.
Updates golang/go#36879
Change-Id: Iad087cf0d529737034197beef7b729816a159c69
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/224757
Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
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>
Add a new Forwarder type to the lsprpc package, which implements the
jsonrpc2.StreamServer interface. This will be used to establish some
parity in the implementation of shared and singleton gopls servers.
Much more testing is needed, as is handling for the many edge cases
around forwarding the LSP, but since this is functionally equivalent to
TCP forwarding (and the -remote flag was already broken), I went ahead
and used the Forwarder to replace the forward method in the serve
command. This means that we can now use the combination of -listen and
-remote to chain together gopls servers... not that there's any reason
to do this.
Also, wrap the new regression tests with a focus on expressiveness when
testing the happy path, as well as parameterizing them so that they can
be run against different client/server execution environments. This
started to be sizable enough to warrant moving them to a separate
regtest package. The lsprpc package tests will instead focus on unit
testing the client-server binding logic.
Updates golang/go#36879
Updates golang/go#34111
Change-Id: Ib98131a58aabc69299845d2ecefceccfc1199574
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/tools/+/218698
Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Heschi Kreinick <heschi@google.com>
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>
