Skip to content
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

Support Type Hierarchy #1231

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
173 changes: 173 additions & 0 deletions _specifications/specification-3-17.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1927,6 +1927,13 @@ export interface TextDocumentClientCapabilities {
* @since 3.16.0
*/
moniker?: MonikerClientCapabilities;

/**
* Capabilities specific to the various type hierarchy requests.
*
* @since 3.17.0
*/
typeHierarchy?: TypeHierarchyClientCapabilities;
}
```

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2419,6 +2426,14 @@ interface ServerCapabilities {
}
}

/**
* The server provides type hierarchy support.
*
* @since 3.17.0
*/
typeHierarchyProvider?: boolean | TypeHierarchyOptions
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is a simple boolean necessary/sufficient here since each server capability can be defined under TypeHierarchyOptions?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, we don't need boolean here in this version. We are considering whether to remove the capability inheritanceTreeSuppport to keep the type hierarchy general. I'll update this PR then.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find it was referring call hierarchy.

callHierarchyProvider?: boolean | CallHierarchyOptions | CallHierarchyRegistrationOptions;

which is equivalent to:

boolean // simplest 
OR
{
  workDoneProgress?: boolean;  // from WorkDoneProgressOptions
} 
OR
{
  workDoneProgress?: boolean;  // from WorkDoneProgressOptions
  id?: string;  // from StaticRegistrationOptions 
  documentSelector: DocumentSelector | null;  // from TextDocumentRegistrationOptions 
}

specifying whether server has capabitility to support work done progress / unregistration / customized scope of the feature.

Is a simple boolean necessary/sufficient here since each server capability can be defined under TypeHierarchyOptions?

@KamasamaK I think boolean is insufficient for advanced features mentioned above. For me, it's somehow necessary . Because on one hand, when I implement it in server side I might not care about any advanced feature, then I can simply return a true; on the other hand it's consistent with other capabilities like call hierarchy.

We are considering whether to remove the capability inheritanceTreeSuppport to keep the type hierarchy general.

@CsCherrYY I'm voting +1 for removing inheritanceTreeSuppport, otherwise for languages supporting multiple inheritance (e.g. C++), you may also need something like inheritanceGraphSuppport?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you don't care about implementing or can't implement advanced features, you can return false for their capabilities. For example, codeLensProvider only has a type of CodeLensOptions with one optional native capability, so that's already established for LSP. That is the reason I say it is probably unnecessary. But if the extra capability is going to be removed, that might change things.

Perhaps @dbaeumer can weigh in on the necessity of a simple boolean for new operations when *Options exists, and whether them having no or only optional native properties makes a difference in that determination.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for pointing out CodeLensOptions. It looks:
{ resolveProvider: false } means server doesn't have a resolve provider.
{ resolveProvider: true } means server also support to resolve code lens.
So now I have a question, if server doesn't support code lens at all, what should it return? (if boolean is not allowed)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excluding codeLensProvider would indicate that the server does not support it.

A missing property should be interpreted as an absence of the capability. If a missing property normally defines sub properties, all missing sub properties should be interpreted as an absence of the corresponding capability.

| TypeHierarchyRegistrationOptions;

/**
* Experimental server capabilities.
*/
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -8173,6 +8188,164 @@ export interface Moniker {
}
```

#### <a href="#textDocument_prepareTypeHierarchy" name="textDocument_prepareTypeHierarchy" class="anchor">Prepare Type Hierarchy Request (:leftwards_arrow_with_hook:)</a>

> *Since version 3.17.0*

The type hierarchy request is sent from the client to the server to return a type hierarchy for the language element of given text document positions. Will return `null` if the server couldn't infer a valid type from the position. The type hierarchy requests are executed in two steps:

1. first a type hierarchy item is prepared for the given text document position.
1. for a type hierarchy item the supertype or subtype type hierarchy items are resolved.

_Client Capability_:

* property name (optional): `textDocument.typeHierarchy`
* property type: `TypeHierarchyClientCapabilities` defined as follows:

```typescript
interface TypeHierarchyClientCapabilities {
/**
* Whether implementation supports dynamic registration. If this is set to
* `true` the client supports the new `(TextDocumentRegistrationOptions &
* StaticRegistrationOptions)` return value for the corresponding server
* capability as well.
*/
dynamicRegistration?: boolean;
}
```

_Server Capability_:

* property name (optional): `typeHierarchyProvider`
* property type: `boolean | TypeHierarchyOptions | TypeHierarchyRegistrationOptions` where `TypeHierarchyOptions` is defined as follows:

```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchyOptions extends WorkDoneProgressOptions {
}
```

_Registration Options_: `TypeHierarchyRegistrationOptions` defined as follows:

```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchyRegistrationOptions extends
TextDocumentRegistrationOptions, TypeHierarchyOptions,
StaticRegistrationOptions {
}
```

_Request_:

* method: 'textDocument/prepareTypeHierarchy'
* params: `TypeHierarchyPrepareParams` defined as follows:

```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchyPrepareParams extends TextDocumentPositionParams,
WorkDoneProgressParams {
}
```

_Response_:

* result: `TypeHierarchyItem[] | null` defined as follows:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why should we allow null here ? What's the client expected to do with a null? It's better to define this to either return an empty array, or an error. Alternatively explicitly define what the meaning of null is (as opposed to an empty array or an error return).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the textDocument/prepareTypeHierarchy request, if the element in the location of the params is not a valid type (that depends on the server implementation, whether to infer a valid type), it will return null to indicate that there is no result. For those types have no subtypes in typeHierarchy/subtypes, the server will return an empty array.

Thanks for the comment, I'll add a description in the next commit.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

null is for consistency since lots of LSP requests that return and array can return null to indicate no elements


```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchyItem {
/**
* The name of this item.
*/
name: string;

/**
* The kind of this item.
*/
kind: SymbolKind;

/**
* Tags for this item.
*/
tags?: SymbolTag[];

/**
* More detail for this item, e.g. the signature of a function.
*/
detail?: string;

/**
* The resource identifier of this item.
*/
uri: DocumentUri;

/**
* The range enclosing this symbol not including leading/trailing whitespace
* but everything else, e.g. comments and code.
*/
range: Range;

/**
* The range that should be selected and revealed when this symbol is being
* picked, e.g. the name of a function. Must be contained by the
* [`range`](#TypeHierarchyItem.range).
*/
selectionRange: Range;

/**
* A data entry field that is preserved between a type hierarchy prepare and
* supertypes or subtypes requests. It could also be used to identify the
* type hierarchy in the server, helping improve the performance on
* resolving supertypes and subtypes.
*/
data?: unknown;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make more sense for the prepare response to be an object (versus an array), and have a single data field? I guess I'm not sure to what extent the full call needs data versus each individual item (where if you really just wanted the same data, you'd have to dupe it on each of them).

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW, in clangd, what we put in the data field is a hash of the internal universal identifier of the symbol represented by the TypeHierarchyItem, so it being per-item makes sense.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think if we need a data field in each individual item would depend on server. If server could hold or cache the whole type hierarchy and use it to find a type in coming requests, one data field is OK, but if server wants to use data field to indicate the specific type, we'd better to keep a data field in each item. In protocol, I suggest keeping this field in each item to support these two usages both.

}
```

* error: code and message set in case an exception happens during the 'textDocument/prepareTypeHierarchy' request

#### <a href="#typeHierarchy_supertypes" name="typeHierarchy_supertypes" class="anchor">Type Hierarchy Supertypes(:leftwards_arrow_with_hook:)</a>

> *Since version 3.17.0*

The request is sent from the client to the server to resolve the supertypes for a given type hierarchy item. Will return `null` if the server couldn't infer a valid type from `item` in the params. The request doesn't define its own client and server capabilities. It is only issued if a server registers for the [`textDocument/prepareTypeHierarchy` request](#textDocument_prepareTypeHierarchy).

_Request_:

* method: 'typeHierarchy/supertypes'
* params: `TypeHierarchySupertypesParams` defined as follows:

```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchySupertypesParams extends
WorkDoneProgressParams, PartialResultParams {
item: TypeHierarchyItem;
}
```
_Response_:

* result: `TypeHierarchyItem[] | null`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what does null return mean?

* partial result: `TypeHierarchyItem[]`
* error: code and message set in case an exception happens during the 'typeHierarchy/supertypes' request

#### <a href="#typeHierarchy_subtypes" name="typeHierarchy_subtypes" class="anchor">Type Hierarchy Subtypes(:leftwards_arrow_with_hook:)</a>

> *Since version 3.17.0*

The request is sent from the client to the server to resolve the subtypes for a given type hierarchy item. Will return `null` if the server couldn't infer a valid type from `item` in the params. The request doesn't define its own client and server capabilities. It is only issued if a server registers for the [`textDocument/prepareTypeHierarchy` request](#textDocument_prepareTypeHierarchy).

_Request_:

* method: 'typeHierarchy/subtypes'

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not obvious why there are so many messages here, nor why the prepare and resolve steps are required.

For clients (and presumably many servers), it would be simpler to return the whole tree in a single message. With this current API proposal there will be a lot of chatter for an ostensibly simple dataset. Could we perhaps incorporate the ability for the server to return the full type hierarchy in response to just a simple /typeHierarchy message as the first instance? Do we know that this is extremely expensive to calculate in many servers (enough to justify the complexity of this back-and-forth prepare/request/request/request API?

It's also unclear to me when a client should use subtypes and super types requests vs the inheritanceTree request - unless I'm missing something, they are implementing the same thing in a different way? What's the rationale for this?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just as you mentioned, calculating the full type hierarchy is extremely expensive for a given type with many subtypes. We currently have an implementation in Java language server, it may cost about 25 seconds to calculate the direct subtypes of java.io.Serializable (1877 subtypes in the example project in total). We want the user to know what server is doing - after prepare request, the client can get the base type itself so that it can be shown. So the user can see the based type with some progress icons at least, with partial result mechanism (if implemented), the client can show the results gradually.

For the second question, we have two common views for all languages, they are subtypes and supertypes. For single inheritance languages, since a given class could only have one superclass, usually they have another view to show all the classes in the inheritance tree. That can be performed in many supertypes requests and a subtypes request as well, so we're still in discussing whether to isolate this request.

* params: `TypeHierarchySubtypesParams` defined as follows:

```typescript
export interface TypeHierarchySubtypesParams extends
WorkDoneProgressParams, PartialResultParams {
item: TypeHierarchyItem;
}
```
_Response_:

* result: `TypeHierarchyItem[] | null`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

again, what's null for? we need to be explicit about what the valid responses are and what they mean, so that client and servers work together in harmony.

* partial result: `TypeHierarchyItem[]`
* error: code and message set in case an exception happens during the 'typeHierarchy/subtypes' request

##### Notes

Server implementations of this method should ensure that the moniker calculation matches to those used in the corresponding LSIF implementation to ensure symbols can be associated correctly across IDE sessions and LSIF indexes.
Expand Down