Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

can :LspInfo (:checkhealth lspconfig) show more detailed info? #3376

Open
justinmk opened this issue Oct 16, 2024 · 13 comments
Open

can :LspInfo (:checkhealth lspconfig) show more detailed info? #3376

justinmk opened this issue Oct 16, 2024 · 13 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@justinmk
Copy link
Member

justinmk commented Oct 16, 2024

Description

#3375 removes an undocumented config.lspinfo extension point that was intended to allow config-specific augmentation of the LspInfo report. Can information such as tool versions be derived from LSP client info and/or server responses instead?

Example use case: #1693 which wants to report the "project file".

Proposal

  • ✅ print the <cmd> --version result. 3375, 3383 3388
  • The client has workspace/configuration, so it knows its own configuration. Why can't LspInfo ask the cient for this kind of info?
  • The client can ask the server for workspace/workspaceFolders, which sounds related to
  • the Nvim client can store info from initialize, workspace/didChangeConfiguration, etc. If that info is available via e.g. vim.lsp.get_clients(), then LspInfo can use it. If info isn't available via vim.lsp.get_clients(), then question is why, and should it be?

suggested by @glacambre :

Could a new field be added to language server configurations listing additional workspace/executeCommand requests that would be nice to perform on :LspInfo? Then the als' configuration could have als-project-file in that field, and Neovim could display the result of that request as a string in LspInfo's buffer.

Maybe vim.lsp.Client could have a statusCmds: string[] field which defines how "status" can be reported by a server.

@glepnir
Copy link
Member

glepnir commented Oct 16, 2024

Can information such as tool versions be derived from the LSP server response instead?

No way lsp spec doesn't have a method to get information of server instead :!clangd --version not enough ? the only usage of config.lspinfo is in hls..so i think you don't need worry about there..

@justinmk
Copy link
Member Author

updated proposal. clangd --version requires config-specific stuff and doesn't address things like #1693 which wants to report the "project file".

@glepnir
Copy link
Member

glepnir commented Oct 16, 2024

aha okay so can we add a health field instead of lspinfo in configs ? this can lead more users to pay attention to checkhealth . default use info level is enought health_info(table.concat(configs.health()), '\n')

@justinmk
Copy link
Member Author

add a health field instead of lspinfo in configs

No. That wouldn't be any different than the existing config.lspinfo field.

What I'm asking is first, what info does the LSP client already know, that can be displayed by checkhealth. Does workspace/workspaceFolders report anything useful?

And why isn't root_dir enough to provide what was intended in #1693 @TamaMcGlinn ? root_dir already defines the *.gpr pattern, so why can't checkhealth use root_dir to say which pattern matched, then report that?

@glacambre
Copy link
Member

so why can't checkhealth use root_dir to say which pattern matched, then report that?

Because there could be multiple *.gpr files in a same root directory, so root_dir isn't enough to know which one is being used by the ada language server. In such a case, clients will often use workspace/didChangeConfiguration to select a .gpr file, but storing and re-displaying that information would not work in cases where the client let the server choose a .gpr file.

@justinmk

This comment has been minimized.

@WhoIsSethDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

@justinmk
Copy link
Member Author

justinmk commented Oct 18, 2024

Or maybe just "version" can be added to the list of options in try_format_version.

yes, that is the idea :) PR welcome...

since it ends up printing a very large 'help' page (that gopls spits out)

we should truncate the output. Done: #3388

@spenrose
Copy link
Contributor

Added version for gopls. #3386

Probably need to add status command to each config.

@justinmk
Copy link
Member Author

justinmk commented Oct 19, 2024

Probably need to add status command to each config.

No. If server commands can't be bothered to provide --version, we aren't going to maintain special workarounds for them. They can either provide --version or we will report "failed to get version". It is idiotic that they don't provide --version, or some other common arg to get version/status info.

@kaddkaka

This comment has been minimized.

@justinmk
Copy link
Member Author

Could :LspInfo also list root_dir?

Thanks, that was a regression. Fixed in #3402

@nogweii
Copy link

nogweii commented Nov 6, 2024

Something I'd like to see is whether an LSP has document formatting support. I have a BufWritePre hook that will format the buffer using all available LSPs. Sometimes that doesn't behave in the way I want (e.g. conflicting styles) so I'd like to know which LSPs are being triggered.

I'm not sure this should be included in lspconfig or if a new API should exist to allow end-users to configure additional status functions to be ran for all language servers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants