Add options for ConfigFactory to handle customConfig properly #2588
Conversation
| val config = ConfigFactory.parseString(text).resolve() | ||
| val config = JsonParser.parseString(text).asJsonObject |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ConfigFactory does not render json. The rendered config contained the comment with # instead of //. Using JsonParser fixes the problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other option would be adding .setComments(false) in the current code.
I thought Lightened Config was a bit more forgiving when parsing e.g. additional commas.
Maybe we can write simple test for that and check how those corner cases looks in case of both approaches?
mkondratek
force-pushed
the
mkondratek/fix/customConfigComments
branch
from
95ac480
to
6264807
Compare
mkondratek
changed the title
| additionalProperties.forEach { (key, value) -> | ||
| config.withValue(key, ConfigValueFactory.fromAnyRef(value)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a bug 😄 configs are immutable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, we ignored "foldingRanges": "indentation-based" - how important for us is this option?
| parsed | ||
| .get("cody") | ||
| .asJsonObject | ||
| .get("experimental") | ||
| .asJsonObject | ||
| .get("foldingRanges") | ||
| .asString) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
withValue adds the field as
"cody": {
"experimental": {
"foldingRanges": "indentation-based"
}
}
instead of
"cody.experimental.foldingRanges": "indentation-based"
Is it a problem? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO It is not, those are equivalent in VSC config.
Fixes https://linear.app/sourcegraph/issue/CODY-4264/a-comment-in-cody-settingsjson-breaks-cody-initialization-stuck-at.
Test plan