feat(eslint): add vim.lsp.config support #3731
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ | |||
| -- https://github.com/hrsh7th/vscode-langservers-extracted | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing @brief. look at other configs
| end, {}) | ||
| end, | ||
| -- https://eslint.org/docs/user-guide/configuring/configuration-files#configuration-file-formats | ||
| root_dir = function(bufnr, on_dir) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest changing the root_dir field to root_markers.
Since there's a rule that the eslint config file must be in the root directory, I believe this change won't cause any problems.
Also, if you refer to lsp/ts_ls.lua, you can confirm that ts_ls also changed into root_markers field from root_dir.
we can just use root_file variable for root_markers. then it can be free from loading lspconfig-utils module also.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My only concern with that change is that, although deprecated, it's possible to define an eslint config inside a package.json file.
This is handled dynamically by lspconfig, which checks for specific patterns in the user's package.json file. Since the property root_markers only accepts a list of strings, we would lose the ability to support package.json-based ESLint configs if migrating from root_dir.
The current root_dir implementation allows for this more complex pattern matching, while root_markers would be limited to exact file names.
crnvl96
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fd58769 to
17cd611
Compare
|
Thanks for the work on this, I was just about to begin my attempt at this change, and then saw yours! |
lsp/eslint.lua
Outdated
| local function fix_all(opts) | ||
| opts = opts or {} | ||
|
|
||
| local bufnr = util.validate_bufnr(0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| local bufnr = util.validate_bufnr(0) | |
| vim.validate('bufnr', bufnr, 'number') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current code uses util.validate_bufnr intentionally. This function acts as a compatibility layer, ensuring buffer number validation will be properly called depending on the neovim version being run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
vim.lsp.config was introduced in 0.11, meaning that this code should only run on 0.11, so it's a perfectly fine change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sometimes, the obvious is so clear that it becomes hard to see 😅
My bad, and thank you
lsp/eslint.lua
Outdated
|
|
||
| if opts.sync then | ||
| request = function(buf, method, params) | ||
| client.request_sync(method, params, nil, buf) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| client.request_sync(method, params, nil, buf) | |
| client:request_sync(method, params, nil, buf) |
lsp/eslint.lua
Outdated
| end | ||
| else | ||
| request = function(buf, method, params) | ||
| client.request(method, params, nil, buf) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| client.request(method, params, nil, buf) | |
| client:request(method, params, nil, buf) |
crnvl96
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
df5d577 to
05a7db0
Compare
This PR crosses
eslintfrom #3705Compared locally against the current implementation from
lua/lspconfig/configs/eslint.luaans seems ok, but I'm open for more specific checks or any kind of improvement you may have.