================
@@ -1637,6 +1678,144 @@ TEST(TypeHints, SubstTemplateParameterAliases) {
ExpectedHint{": static_vector<int>", "vector_name"});
}
+template <typename... Labels>
+void assertTypeLinkHints(StringRef Code, StringRef HintRange,
+ Labels... ExpectedLabels) {
+ Annotations Source(Code);
+ auto HintAt = [&](llvm::ArrayRef<InlayHint> InlayHints,
+ llvm::StringRef Range) {
+ auto *Hint = llvm::find_if(InlayHints, [&](const InlayHint &InlayHint) {
+ return InlayHint.range == Source.range(Range);
+ });
+ assert(Hint && "No range was found");
+ return llvm::ArrayRef(Hint->label);
+ };
+
+ TestTU TU = TestTU::withCode(Source.code());
+ TU.ExtraArgs.push_back("-std=c++2c");
+ auto AST = TU.build();
+
+ Config C;
+ C.InlayHints.TypeNameLimit = 0;
+ WithContextValue WithCfg(Config::Key, std::move(C));
+
+ auto Hints = hintsOfKind(AST, InlayHintKind::Type);
+ EXPECT_THAT(HintAt(Hints, HintRange),
+ ElementsAre(HintLabelPieceMatcher(ExpectedLabels, Source)...));
+}
+
+TEST(TypeHints, Links) {
+ StringRef Source(R"cpp(
+ $Package[[template <class T, class U>
----------------
zyn0217 wrote:
> Is there a reason to prefer putting full decl source ranges into
> InlayHintLabelPart.location, rather than single-token source ranges (e.g.
> just the range Package) like in the go-to-definition response?
Frankly, it is because the protocol requires a source range of something, and
I'm concerned that providing only one source location doesn't really make a
better experience. But I have to say I've never attempted it before, so I think
it's worth a try.
> What vscode seems to do is call textDocument/definition at the start position
> of the range, and navigate to the resulting definition location.
I have realized that problem; it looks like a call to `textDocument/definition`
is not cheap and it usually takes a few seconds to respond (taking us to the
definition/getting the hover content) on my other large project.
> We have [some
> utilities](https://searchfox.org/llvm/rev/1664610130b88ef168e33eddfe973a3f11bd4261/clang-tools-extra/clangd/XRefs.cpp#414-415)
> for getting the single-token source range for the go-to-def response, which
> we could probably reuse.
> (As a bonus, it makes the tests a bit easier to write and read.)
Thanks! I really appreciate that and will explore it soon. :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86629
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
