Add LSP tests for definition / type definition #4255
Conversation
We could eventually expand this to multiple modules, but keeping it simple for now.
|
The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf CI / buf (pull_request).
|
|
FWIW, pausing on adding any other tests for now; I know we talked about specifically tests for completion and semantic tokens, but IMO we ought to have some basic coverage over all of our advertised "providers", so we'd also want to add formatting, rename, references and symbols as well at some point. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I figured it was better for the tests to all have their own separate "projects" in testdata; didn't want to have to update every test when we made changes to further test a single feature.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I agree with this sentiment and it's consistent with the way we structure test data elsewhere in the code base.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I agree with this sentiment and it's consistent with the way we structure test data elsewhere in the code base.
Follow up to #4254. I know this sort of test is somewhat contrived, but they're fairly cheap to write and maintain, and should give us the freedom to make larger changes knowing that we aren't breaking things under the covers.