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

[callhierarchy] Add proposed LSP implementation #3220

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

AlexTugarev
Copy link
Contributor

also add generic implementation for python (to maintain the legacy)

screen shot 2018-10-18 at 10 47 20

related PR for the typescript-language-server: typescript-language-server/typescript-language-server#85
related PR for the LSP extension: microsoft/vscode-languageserver-node#420

also add generic implementation for python (to maintain the legacy)

Signed-off-by: Alex Tugarev <alex.tugarev@typefox.io>
@kittaakos
Copy link
Contributor

@AlexTugarev, we have to align the UX for the Call Hierarchy and the Type Hierarchy. I propose doing it after both PRs are merged. What do you think?

@AlexTugarev
Copy link
Contributor Author

I propose doing it after both PRs are merged. What do you think?

That would be awesome! Also I think the expansion vs selection issue can be tackled then.

@kittaakos
Copy link
Contributor

expansion vs selection issue

#3225

@AlexTugarev AlexTugarev changed the title [callhierarchy] Add proposed LSP implementation [WIP] [callhierarchy] Add proposed LSP implementation Oct 29, 2018
@AlexTugarev
Copy link
Contributor Author

typescript-language-server/typescript-language-server#85 is merged. 'gonna publish typescript-language-server and update this PR.

@akosyakov
Copy link
Member

@AlexTugarev 0.3.7 was published with these changes

@AlexTugarev
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this in favor of #4154.

@AlexTugarev AlexTugarev deleted the at/calls branch April 16, 2019 10:37
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.

3 participants