kate lsp client plugin

[Dominik Haumann]

Hi Mark,

indeed the code completion is also working - my bad, sorry.
For "Goto Declaration", I can see the following output on the console:

LSPClientServer::LSPClientServerPrivate::write: calling
"textDocument/didChange"
LSPClientServer::LSPClientServerPrivate::write: calling
"textDocument/declaration"
V[09:08:39.475] <<< { "jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"textDocument/didChange",
    "params":{
        "contentChanges":[{"text":" <stripped documents contents>"}],

"textDocument":{"uri":"file:///home/dh/kde/kf5/src/kde/applications/kate/addons/lspclient/lspclientserver.cpp","version":9}
    }
}

I[09:08:39.550] <-- textDocument/didChange
I[09:08:39.550] Failed to find compilation database for
/home/dh/kde/kf5/src/kde/applications/kate/addons/lspclient/lspclientserver.cpp
V[09:08:39.550] <<<
{"id":11,"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"textDocument/declaration","params":{"position":{"character":22,"line":155},"textDocument":{"uri":"file:///home/dh/kde/kf5/src/kde/applications/kate/addons/lspclient/lspclientserver.cpp"}}}

I[09:08:39.551] <-- textDocument/declaration(11)
I[09:08:39.551] --> reply:textDocument/declaration(11) 0 ms, error: -32601:
method not found
V[09:08:39.551] >>> {"error":{"code":-32601,"message":"method not
found"},"id":11,"jsonrpc":"2.0"}

Maybe that helps in identifying the issue :-)

Best regards
Dominik




On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:52 PM Mark Nauwelaerts <
mark.nauwelaerts at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dominik,
>
> Rather puzzling ... I suppose the message is "No results".  There have
> been a few changes there, but those are mostly related to post-processing
> of the results (to display in a bottom toolview), or displaying that
> message if nothing found.  There have been no changes in the part leading
> up to getting the result.  It does all still work here ... does completion
> still work?
>
> Running kate with debug might shed some more light whether the request to
> server is bogus, or the server has somehow given up on coming up with
> results;
> QT_LOGGING_RULES=katelspclient.debug=true ./bin/kate 2>/tmp/output.log
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> On 11/07/19 22:25, Dominik Haumann wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> the current version does not work anymore for me. Is there anything that I
> need to pay attention to?
>
> The symbols sidebar still works, but all other actions that operate on the
> current cursor position just result in a Message in the bottom right corner.
>
> Best regards
> Dominik
>
> Mark Nauwelaerts <mark.nauwelaerts at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 10. Juli
> 2019, 19:04:
>
>> On 10/07/19 16:28, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> Interesting ...  at present the "servermanager" sends a (meaningless)
>> >> document revision-id to the server, but it may well send a revision
>> >> obtained from MovingInterface (and lock as well). Some simple RAII
>> >> wrapper (with shared semantics) can be made for a "locked revision"
>> >> and a collection of those (for current known/tracked documents)
>> >> returned from servermananger to caller (when requesting a document
>> >> sync/update to the server).  That (RAII) collection can then be
>> >> captured into the lambda (if so deemed desired/useful by caller) so
>> >> that the (old) revision is available for translation to current(cursor
>> >> positions) when processing response.  Shared RAII will then release as
>> >> and when ok by all holders.
>> >>
>> >> In case of symbolview, that is probably not needed, since the outline
>> >> is a "moving target" anyway when typing frantically and will update
>> >> (accurately) to latest state when typing seizes.
>> >
>> > Hmm, I think for the symbol view it would be not that bad, given at
>> least
>> > normally
>> > it will perfectly fine translate the line moves and you don't need to
>> trigger
>> > reparsing
>> > that often at all. But it is nothing critical.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> However, it is as noted useful for well-aimed highlighting, and also
>> >> when the time comes for processing server TextEdits (e.g. formatting).
>> >
>> > Yes, for that it would be much more important.
>> >
>> > Dominik linked you some pull requests for some smaller changes, you
>> could take
>> > a look at that.
>> >
>> > If you have some further changes, it would be cool if you can push them,
>> > I want to take a look if I could improve the highlight further ;=)
>> >
>> > Greetings
>> > Christoph
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Mark
>> >
>> Ok, I pushed all I have here (specifically the highlight stuff).
>>
>> I had a look at those requests and accepted them, which turned into
>> Approved for
>> one of them, but not so for the other (in a more confused state?).  I
>> assume the
>> actual landing is then done by back-end and/or submitting author?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kwrite-devel/attachments/20190712/d23ad45c/attachment-0001.html>