Improvement Idea: sort code actions by specificity

[MrGreenTea]

Hi, thanks for this great integration. It works really well.

When I have an unused import and want to auto remove it I get a list similar to this:

In my opinion I would prefer the cursor/line specific code action to be at position 1 as it applies directly to the current cursor position.
I believe the order should be

1. Remove unused import (currently at 3)
2. Disable for this line (currently at 4)
3. Organize Imports (currently at 1)
4. Fix All ((currently at 2)

I've taken a look at the server implementation and it seems the order comes from the return of code_action in server.py.

If first the Ruff: Autofix and "Disable for this line" are added to the list and then Organize Imports and Fix All it looks like this:

What is your opinion on this? Would you be interested in me providing these changes as a PR?

[MrGreenTea]

I was only thinking about the order of the autofix and the suggestion to disable it. I think the way it is right now makes more sense, where the autofixes are shown first and then in a separate "block" the disables. But maybe you think different?

This is what I mean and the way I prefer it:

This is how it could also look, sorted by diagnostic code, which I find quite confusing actually:

[zanieb]

I like the idea! Would you be interested in opening a pull request? @charliermarsh may have an opinion as well.

[dhruvmanila]

This is an interesting and useful idea but a point to be noted is that the client could alter the order of code actions. The server may provide the code actions in some order but the client implementation (in this case the Neovim LSP client + Telescope fuzzy finder) might alter the order to display the code actions. In an ideal scenario, the client wouldn't update the order but it's a possibility.

[charliermarsh]

This seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure how much we can do to order the single-code fixes (e.g., how should we order F401 vs. F841?), but putting the Fix All and Organize Imports at the end seems reasonable.

[MrGreenTea]

I like the idea! Would you be interested in opening a pull request? @charliermarsh may have an opinion as well.

Yes I will create a PR for this in the next days. Glad you like the idea as well.

This is an interesting and useful idea but a point to be noted is that the client could alter the order of code actions. The server may provide the code actions in some order but the client implementation (in this case the Neovim LSP client + Telescope fuzzy finder) might alter the order to display the code actions. In an ideal scenario, the client wouldn't update the order but it's a possibility.

Yeah there is nothing we can do about that though, right? Perhaps we should look at this as the suggested order. It's also interesting to me how this interacts with other servers that provide code actions at that location.

[MrGreenTea]

I've now gotten around to implementing the change (which was just moving two code blocks above the others in the code_action handler.

I'm a bit at a loss at how to write tests for this though. If someone could give me a pointer in the right direction I'd be very glad, otherwise I will need to find an hour or so some other time and dig into it myself. I've opened a WIP Pull Request: #245

[charliermarsh]

Closed by #245.