Conversation
…ctcode and the nvim-lint built-in sarif parser
xentropic-dev
force-pushed
the
feat/resharper
branch
from
7f2c8e8 to
185f39f
Compare
|
@mfussenegger , I have converted this PR to a draft. I addressed all of your points, I think:
I'm keeping it as draft for now in case you want me to include anything in the documentation about which version of resharper is required. I am also looking into optimizing it so the linter runs faster; I'm not sure caching is working right now. |
|
Also just noticed I accidentally reformatted the readme; i'll get that fixed. |
| local function find_upward(extension) | ||
| local dir = vim.fn.getcwd() | ||
| while dir and dir ~= "/" do | ||
| local files = vim.fn.globpath(dir, "*" .. extension, false, true) | ||
| if not vim.tbl_isempty(files) then | ||
| return files[1] | ||
| end | ||
| dir = vim.fn.fnamemodify(dir, ":h") | ||
| end | ||
| return nil | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| return function() | ||
| local root_file = find_upward(".sln") | ||
| if not root_file then | ||
| root_file = find_upward(".csproj") | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| if not root_file then | ||
| vim.notify("No solution file or csproj found in parent directories", vim.log.levels.WARN) | ||
| return {} | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| local current_buffer = vim.api.nvim_get_current_buf() | ||
| local filepath = vim.api.nvim_buf_get_name(current_buffer) | ||
|
|
||
| if filepath == "" then | ||
| vim.notify("Current buffer has no file associated", vim.log.levels.WARN) | ||
| return {} | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| local solution_directory = vim.fn.fnamemodify(root_file, ":h") | ||
|
|
||
| local relative_filepath = filepath:sub(#solution_directory + 2) | ||
| local cache_directory = vim.fn.stdpath("cache") .. "/nvim-lint-resharper" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be changed to only search .sln or .csproj relative to the current dir?
Adding root dir heuristics as part of the linter is out of scope for nvim-dap. cwd can be parameterized as part of the try_lint call for users who have cwd != project_dir.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the resharper cli cannot lint a single file. It has to run against an entire project or solution. So I guess it's fine as long the user always has csproj or sln in the cwd. For me, that rarely is the case because .NET projects are often nested in various folders. .NET has solution groups to organize files virtually that is irrespective of file tree structure on disk, which makes it even a little more confusing. I have a plugin I wrote for this problem, but basically .NET projects aren't always structured relative on disk; sometimes it's by the "logical" solution groups.
https://github.com/xentropic-dev/explorer.dotnet.nvim
I think for nvim-lint, I should just do whatever makes sense for the good of the rest of the plugin's ecosystem, but I'm really starting to think I need to just make a separate plugin for just the resharper cli. There's too many ways in which the tool is different than the standard linters in this project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I guess it's fine as long the user always has csproj or sln in the cwd. For me, that rarely is the case because
You could still do something as described in #482 (comment)
And at some point in the future there might be a solution based on neovim/neovim#34622
So for now I'd restrict resharper to only search downward from cwd
| local cache_directory = vim.fn.stdpath("cache") .. "/nvim-lint-resharper" | ||
|
|
||
| -- Ensure cache directory exists | ||
| vim.fn.mkdir(cache_directory, "p") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this have to be specified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be honest, I'm not sure. In my tests, it could take 7 or 8 seconds or more for the linter to run on an entire project and caching seemed to have minor effects to the point where I couldn't even be sure if it was working. This was an attempt by me to be as explicit as possible to try to ensure caching was working, and it also gave me a way to check to make sure the cache was actually being saved. I still didn't see any performance increase really by enabling caching and/or specifying the cache directory. I'm fine with removing the cache_directory completely tbh.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there wasn't any difference in your tests I'd be in favor of removing it.
2 participants
Implements support for JetBrains resharper code inspection CLI tools.
Closes #798