Fix issue #83 #119
Closed
Fix issue #83 #119
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks a lot for creating this PR @thomasjm. If you could include a test or two that would be lovely. |
|
Released as part of #192 Thanks for your contribution! |
domnewkirk
added a commit
to domnewkirk/bash-language-server
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
Most of the implementation was done by @thomasjm in bash-lsp/bash-language-server#119
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an attempt to fix #83. See my comments there for more context on the problem.
This PR adds filtering to the completion results, so you only get complete results for which the current word you're typing is a prefix.
The main challenge here was to improve the
analyser.wordAtPointfunction so that it retrieves the correct word when you're at the edge of a word (as is usually the case when using completion).Note: I suspect that similar boundary issues are the reason for the "Hack" code on line 321 of the original code, so maybe that can be removed now but I'm not sure how to test.
@skovhus