sammccall added a comment. In D99540#2799159 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99540#2799159>, @kadircet wrote:
>> Sorry I've lost my context - did we decide to move forward with this patch? > > I don't think we've came to a conclusion, just decided to postpone until > needed. I believe the `cases` design is really a good fit for making tweaks > expose multiple code actions. > > But we've actually missed one thing while discussing this patch. It actually > allows data from `clang::Diagnostic` to be stashed into `clangd::Diag` for > use later on. Modules can actually stash this info while the AST is being > built, later on they can be retrieved directly from the > `ParsedAST::getDiagnostics()`. But this creates the N*M problem again, and > feels like a hack. > What we can do instead is during `enumerateTweak`, we can group `data` in > diagnostics (making sure `data` stored in `diagnostic` is keyed by > `tweak::id`) and pass an additional array of json objects in > `tweak::prepare`. This will make the problem N+M again and make the data > passing explicit. Sorry, somehow I'm not following this (either the problem or the suggestion at all). Let's chat this week about it... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99540/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99540 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
