[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet abandoned this revision. kadircet added a comment. Herald added a project: clang-tools-extra. abandoning in favor of D98498 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

sammccall added a comment. In D96245#2602896 , @kadircet wrote: > Agreed, I was going this way because currently there was no way to provide a > code action to clangd::diagnostic apart from storing it in the fixes map > while generating it. I suppose it

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

njames93 added a comment. One little curveball I'm still kind of hoping we can integrate clang-format into our codeAction workflow, in the hopes of addressing https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/429. While we compute the edits eagerly we don't actually send them until the client request for

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet added a comment. In D96245#2602293 , @sammccall wrote: > Will the fixes/actions this enables really be available synchronously? The fixes stay as is today, but the action might be just a command that needs to be invoked by the client (so it is s

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

sammccall added a comment. Will the fixes/actions this enables really be available synchronously? AFAIK the only reasons we attach fixes to diagnostics are: - because clang fixes are generated at parse time and need to be stored somewhere - for the benefit of embedders that need the fix content

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet added a comment. ping :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/c

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet updated this revision to Diff 326686. kadircet added a comment. - Update header Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245 Files: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp clang-tools-e

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet updated this revision to Diff 322743. kadircet added a comment. - Rebase Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245 Files: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp clang-tools-extra/cl

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet added a comment. > Emitting fixes for a diagnostic in another file seems dangerous, what's the > intended use case for this? one particular example is fixing layering violations in more strict build systems like bazel/blaze. for example if you `#include "a.h"` in a file, but build tar

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

njames93 added a comment. Emitting fixes for a diagnostic in another file seems dangerous, what's the intended use case for this? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96245 ___

[PATCH] D96245: [clangd] Propagate CodeActions in addition to Fixes for diagnostics

kadircet created this revision. Herald added subscribers: usaxena95, arphaman. kadircet requested review of this revision. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, MaskRay, ilya-biryukov. Herald added a project: clang. Fixes only allow modifications to local file containing the diagnostics, with Cod