-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
Scan workspaces in background tasks #1245
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
Open
lionel-
wants to merge
12
commits into
oak/salsa-12-scan-workspace
Choose a base branch
from
oak/salsa-13-scan-async
base: oak/salsa-12-scan-workspace
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fa9ae94
Add support for asynchronous scanning
lionel- 5338d6b
Reformat
lionel- 0c299c1
Fix test on Windows
lionel- 03fa969
Fix hangs caused by interaction between Salsa and indexer/diagnostics
lionel- a2787c2
Fix rebase conflicts
lionel- ed84b4a
Reformat
lionel- 551f4ad
Dispatch scan requests from the handlers
lionel- 9cb1bf9
Proper integration tests
lionel- d5a7976
Rename `pending` to `requests`
lionel- 6b7427b
Tighten visibility
lionel- 56128fc
Address code review
lionel- 1f4ad19
Fix stranded `Scanning` root
lionel- File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather than tweaking the value of each LSP Request to possibly return
ScanRequests, I think I would much rather allowstate_handlers::initialize()andstate_handlers::did_change_workspace_folders()to kick off the scan requests themselves.i.e. if you just pass
events_txto each of those, they should have everything they need to kick off aspawn_blocking()call.That way you can, for example, keep the dispatch close to the
lsp_state.oak_scheduler.set_workspace_paths()call that requires it, which seems nice to me.I also really like that that would mean that we would not need the
respond_with()changes (I'm not super comfortable with how the::default()behavior there works) and tweaks to the return values just for this one feature.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(This one feels important enough to me to talk about)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems like this idea has merit, with
dispatch_scan_requests()calls moving right afteroak_schedulerusage like thisand then this nicely simplifies back to where we started
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good idea