fix: use pointers for optional LSP settings [IDE-899] #811
Conversation
This file contains 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
Previously we had no way to distinguish between the settings object being omitted and being set to "empty" value for the struct. As such we were ignoring settings objects that were set to the same as the "empty" struct value, as it would have broken / overridden the default LSP settings for clients that did not support the setting. With this change to using pointers, we can distinguish between a client not sending the settings object (because they don't support it yet) and a client sending the settings object but deliberately setting the values to be the same as the empty struct.
ShawkyZ
reviewed
Mar 26, 2025
ShawkyZ
reviewed
Mar 26, 2025
rrama
changed the title
rrama
commented
Apr 16, 2025
acke
approved these changes
Apr 16, 2025
Plus make a test's mixed IVO filters actually mixed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Previously we had no way to distinguish between the settings object being omitted and being set to "empty" value for the struct. As such we were ignoring settings objects that were set to the same as the "empty" struct value, as it would have broken / overridden the default LSP settings for clients that did not support the setting. With this change to using pointers, we can distinguish between a client not sending the settings object (because they don't support it yet) and a client sending the settings object but deliberately setting the values to be the same as the empty struct.
Checklist