handle code actions requiring a separate file than the current buffer

[tlo-johnson]

when a code action does things in a file other than the current buffer, nothing happens. here's a fix for that ... seems to work as best i tested it.

a few things

• is there a test suite to run ensuring i am not breaking anything?
• not sure what to do when a new file is opened. should the user be taken back to the buffer from where the code action was run? should the new file be saved automatically? right now the user is left in the new file that was created, the file is not saved.
• my python is non-existent so if there's a better way to accomplish this don't hesitate to let me know / change it.

thx

[tlo-johnson]

oh .. feel free to squash the commits. i should have done that ... sorry

[nickspoons]

I've only just become a maintainer, but historically the system here has been to do a straight merge, and let the submitter be responsible for whether they want to squash, so I'm just following that system. But if you prefer me to squash your PRs I can do that.

[nickspoons]

To answer the points above:

• No there is no test suite currently unfortunately. PR#287 will address that for the python code at least.
• In my opinion a code action that results in a change in another buffer/file should go to that buffer if there's only one - but not for e.g. refactoring changes that might affect many files though. What is an example of a code action that this affects/fixes?
• There have been a lot of coders with different styles who have contributed to the python before now. As long as it works and is reasonably consistent with the existing code style(s!) I'd say it's fine. Once the two big python PRs have been merged, we might be able to look at some rewrites if we need to.

[tlo-johnson]

this fixes code actions that affect only one file. for example, move class to a separate file, create class in new file, etc. - Tolu

…

________________________________ From: Nick Jensen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:39:33 PM To: OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim Cc: Tolu Adesegha; Author Subject: Re: [OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim] handle code actions requiring a separate file than the current buffer (#359) To answer the points above: * No there is no test suite currently unfortunately. PR#287 will address that for the python code at least. * In my opinion a code action that results in a change in another buffer/file should go to that buffer if there's only one - but not for e.g. refactoring changes that might affect many files though. What is an example of a code action that this affects/fixes? * There have been a lot of coders with different styles who have contributed to the python before now. As long as it works and is reasonably consistent with the existing code style(s!) I'd say it's fine. Once the two big python PRs have been merged, we might be able to look at some rewrites if we need to. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#359 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIW3CN_EQSA1K-XA8ENDgvW8m4bsFcHhks5tqn_FgaJpZM4TeOCU>.

[nickspoons]

Great, I'll give it a try when I get some time later on, thanks!

I guess this is similar to dotnet/vscode-csharp#2112, which is apparently fixed by OmniSharp/omnisharp-roslyn#1143. I don't suppose you're testing against the latest version of omnisharp-roslyn?

[tlo-johnson]

oh i have no clue. i updated roslyn three days ago. i’ll take a look at the fix once i get a chance - Tolu

…

________________________________ From: Nick Jensen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:54:46 PM To: OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim Cc: Tolu Adesegha; Author Subject: Re: [OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim] handle code actions requiring a separate file than the current buffer (#359) Great, I'll give it a try when I get some time later on, thanks! I guess this is similar to omnisharp-vscode#2112, which is apparently fixed by omnisharp-roslyn#1143. I don't suppose you're testing against the latest version of omnisharp-roslyn? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#359 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIW3CH8iWKJ4bY8Oj_YVJMwWXEIyHin1ks5tqoNVgaJpZM4TeOCU>.

[nickspoons]

Updated to the latest release, or are you building roslyn from source?

[tlo-johnson]

oh .. from source. i have OmniSharp_server_path set to a repo i manually pulled down. omnisharp-vim no longer pulls down roslyn/server does it? - Tolu

…

________________________________ From: Nick Jensen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:59:24 PM To: OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim Cc: Tolu Adesegha; Author Subject: Re: [OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim] handle code actions requiring a separate file than the current buffer (#359) Updated to the latest release, or are you building roslyn from source? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#359 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIW3CMx3xy38JTiJJ4pq4sT2YY4V5wXLks5tqoRsgaJpZM4TeOCU>.

[nickspoons]

Great, I do the same thing. That fix was merged 2 weeks ago so this should be good.

I don't think vim ever pulled the servers itself, but it had them as submodules. We removed that as it was overly complicated - for the majority of users downloading the releases is the best option.

[tlo-johnson]

nice. try it out. let me know if there’s anything needing change. - Tolu

…

________________________________ From: Nick Jensen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 8:16:24 PM To: OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim Cc: Tolu Adesegha; Author Subject: Re: [OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim] handle code actions requiring a separate file than the current buffer (#359) Great, I do the same thing. That fix was merged 2 weeks ago so this should be good. I don't think vim ever pulled the servers itself, but it had them as submodules. We removed that as it was overly complicated - for the majority of users downloading the releases is the best option. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#359 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIW3CHpq-qrNoA_VsPKqjbiMqj4EQBdLks5tqohogaJpZM4TeOCU>.

[nickspoons]

Hi @tadesegha, I've given this a try and it works well. After saying my personal preference was to switch to the new file buffer, I had a quick look at how VSCode handles this situation and they leave focus in the current buffer too, so let's leave this as it is. The new buffer is just a away anyway.

Thanks very much!