On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 2:39 PM Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
wrote:

> João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The idea is good, but how does this play along with the existing
> > eglot-confirm-server-initiated-edits?
>
> It takes precedence, since the diff is regarded as a kind of prompt.  If
> you want to, I can also update the patch to use that option instead of a
> custom one (e.g. present a diff if
> `eglot-confirm-server-initiated-edits' is set to `diff').


This is an improvement, but it's not enough, unfortunately.

The current semantics of eglot-confirm-server-initiated-edits must first be
investigated, then potentially expanded/consolidated, even before the
augmentation
with the new 'diff value.   Only then should 'diff be added.  If we do this
some other
way, we only increase inconsistency and confusion.

Here is some information to get started with the investigation.

The function responsible for applying edits, eglot--apply-workspace-edit is
called currently from 3 places:

1. eglot-rename (this ignores eglot-c-s-initiated-edits, but confirms with
a prefix
argument).  The reasoning is that this is such a common action that by
default
we shouldn't bother the user with confirmation.

2. When the user chooses a code action from a list of code actions presented
as a menu and that code action happens to contain an edit.  This also
ignores
eglot-c-s-initiated-edits.  The locus of the call is
eglot--read-execute-code-action.
The reasoning here is, I believe, that the user is already being presented
with
an interactive prompt, and presenting a second follow-up seemed too much.

3. When applying a code action that makes the server initiate a code
action.
The locus is eglot--handle-request (for workspace/applyEdit).  Here
eglot-confirm-server-initiated-edits is read honoured.  The reasoning here
is
that the user might not be aware of the breadth of the code action that the
server is about to propose.

Note that the differences between 2 and 3 are subtle, and perhaps
conceptually
non-existent, but technically they do exist.  In 2, the edit is immediately
available whereas in 3, a further server trip is required to get the edit
to apply.

Moreover, the current method of  "confirmation" is just a prompt that lists
the
files about to be changed.  This is what should change, perhaps even by
default,  to a presentation of a diff in a separate buffer.

Currently, the confirmation happens also (regardless of the value of
eglot-confirm-server-initiated-edits) if any of the files about to be
changed
is not yet visited in a buffer.

So to summarize, I would like to hear proposals on how to make
user confirmation of edits more consistent and predictable across the
various use cases.

Then, as I've already said, the "diff" method of confirmation sounds in
principle very robust  and in-line with Emacs' principles. It could
eventually
even be made the default.

João