-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Allow configuration providers to provide the compileCommands
file path
#12252
Comments
@g-arjones See https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-cpptools-api . We could move this feature request there. |
Thanks!
Sounds good to me! |
I believe the feature has been requested already: microsoft/vscode-cpptools-api#50 |
As far as I understood, the other one proposes the construction of a Would fit my use case as well but not the same. I think my suggestion is simpler to implement. |
I believe they said they had started doing that, but wanted to just give us the compile_commands.json so they wouldn't have to do it.
|
Yeah... I understood they wanted something like: let config = SourceFileConfigurationItem("path/to/compile_commands.json");
// ... the file is parsed by **vscode-cpptools-api** (no changes to the interface)
// and the existing members are set What I am suggesting is: let config = SourceFileConfigurationItem();
config.compileCommands = "path/to/compile_commands.json";
// requires adding `compileCommands` to `SourceFileConfigurationItem`
// parsing is done by vscode-cpptools/IntelliSense (I'm not sure which one consumes the compilation db)
// `config` may have nothing set aside from `SourceFileConfigurationItem.compileCommands` That's how I typically use |
To be clear: I would be fine with either. Is anything like this currently a planned feature? |
The difference between the two examples you provided looks like an implementation detail and I believe either would achieve the same purpose. However, since the @Colengms and I have discussed the project configuration concept before but we haven't scheduled this work yet due to competing priorities. It's possible that much of this work could be done in the Open Source portions of our codebase and we would accept help from someone in the community if they had the time to look into it. |
Doesn't a I may find some time to help with the implementation if you guys can help with design and planning. I'm not familiar with this codebase and unfortunately cannot look deep into it. |
It could, but the browse configuration is only looking for file paths to scan. It doesn't help with the IntelliSense configuration. The |
That makes sense.
Please, let me know if/when you do. I'll be happy to take care of the implementation since that would save me a lot of work on a feature I'm working on. |
Feature Request
I've also looked for documentation (a developer guide?) about how extension authors should use the configuration provider interface and could not find any...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: