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

Do not raise on missing contentChanges in didSave #187

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 8, 2020

Conversation

krassowski
Copy link
Member

References

Fixes #185.

Code changes

Reading through the specs, now I would have implemented shadow_virtual_documents differently, but I guess it is too early for a larger refactor. Let it be a simple bugfix for now...

User-facing changes

None

Backwards-incompatible changes

None

Chores

  • linted
  • tested
  • documented
  • changelog entry

@krassowski
Copy link
Member Author

@bollwyvl would it make sense to move jupyter-lsp out of beta after merging this?

@krassowski
Copy link
Member Author

bump? just waiting for changelog and not sure which way to go ;)

@bollwyvl
Copy link
Collaborator

bollwyvl commented Feb 8, 2020

out of beta

Well, it's starting to get used in other places. The biggest things I could see changing before having something that we sort of commit to are:

  • supporting tcp servers (mostly so that the pygls-in-IPython demo is more compelling)
  • changing the URL schema to be based on the entry_point rather than mucking about with languages

But it's all beta anwyay!

Does this quiet down the log messages as well? I'm not too worried about it either way, just wondering.

assert result is None

# should raise on missing changes in didChange
with pytest.raises(ShadowFilesystemError, match=".* is missing contentChanges"):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@bollwyvl bollwyvl self-requested a review February 8, 2020 01:10
Copy link
Collaborator

@bollwyvl bollwyvl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's still all dark magic to me, but the test does test the condition.

@krassowski
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the review!

Does this quiet down the log messages as well? I'm not too worried about it either way, just wondering.

Have not been able to reproduce on master; I have a suspicion that the report of excessive logging was due to my mistake and pushing to PyPI with one diagnostic print in the code (oops)... Should get fixed now either way.

The biggest things I could see changing before having something that we sort of commit to are:

I guess that we can use semantic versioning to announce that (i.e. 1.0).

@krassowski krassowski merged commit 3ca4f0a into master Feb 8, 2020
@krassowski krassowski deleted the fix/didSaveHandler branch March 14, 2020 10:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Plenty of messages on notebook save KeyError: 'contentChanges'
2 participants