Cannot complete definition that are possible to jump to.

[przepompownia]

Let the project files be an example. Then:

• open testing/fixtures/sourcing.sh
• verify that testing/fixtures/issue101.sh was analyzed
• write add_a_u somewhere in empty line. I do not see add_a_user in suggestions.

After manual completion I was able to jump to definition in issue101.sh.

[przepompownia]

It looks like collecting symbols from the current file only:

https://github.com/bash-lsp/bash-language-server/blob/master/server/src/server.ts#L219

bash-language-server/server/src/analyser.ts

Line 247 in 790f5a5

public findSymbolCompletions(uri: string): BashCompletionItem[] {

[skovhus]

The problem is that we only search for symbols in the current file (see https://github.com/bash-lsp/bash-language-server/blob/master/server/src/server.ts#L219).

We should try to search in all files (and prioritize matches in the current file). This can be done by turning findSymbolCompletions into the way findDefinition works, but taken a partial word.

Note that jump to definition across files works (write add_a_user and click on it jumps to the correct file).

[skovhus]

Concern: will this bloat the suggestions? As we have no knowledge of which bash files are sourced, the feature will potentially suggest a lot of irrelevant symbols.

I have a working implementation, that I will wrap up so we can try it out. :)

[przepompownia]

Currently we have available lots of symbols irrelevant to current scope (especially local variables from inside the rest of functions) and unavailable other symbols that would be accessible (variables that are only declared and functions from external scripts).

While bash-language-server is unable to recognize the current scope, providing only function names from external scripts seems to be an intermediate solution.

[skovhus]

providing only function names from external scripts seems to be an intermediate solution.

Would we limit it to functions? I’m wondering if variables also would be useful (see the sourcing example with colors). But I need to input here as I’m not usually dealing with multiple connected bash files.

Wondering if we could do something to understand scope better. We could maybe use the parsing tree. @mads-hartmann?

[skovhus]

This was released as version 1.9.0.

@przepompownia I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback. Let me know if you suggest any adjustments.

[skovhus]

I created a new issue for exploring the scope aware feature: #220

[przepompownia]

It is very helpful, especially with description :) Thanks!

[skovhus]

It is very helpful, especially with description :) Thanks!

Glad to hear. Please do not hesitate to create issues with other suggestions. :)