GNU bug report logs - #58141
[Eglot] Default eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face is problematic

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 58141 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [Eglot] Default eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face is problematic
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:39:25 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Or at least I really dislike the default value, which looks like this:

[Screenshot from 2022-09-28 13-16-40.png (image/png, inline)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

When I first saw this face appearing, I had no idea what was going on.
That this is a Flymake warning is unexpected, since there's nothing
squiggly about it.  Moreover, it overrides all other font-locking, which
presumably still has meaningful information.  Finally, I think it's hard
to be sure the result is readable in all custom themes, even all
reasonable ones.

In general, I would argue that “creative” decorations should be left off
by default.  So concretely in this case my suggestion would be to let
eglot-diagnostic-*-face inherit from one of the good old Flymake faces.

Message #8 received at 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
To: 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#58141: [Eglot] Default
 eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face is problematic
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 13:15:03 +0200

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 at 13:39, Augusto Stoffel wrote:

> Finally, I think it's hard to be sure the result is readable in all
> custom themes, even all reasonable ones.

I initially wrote this as an abstract argument, but let me point out
that in the Modus Operandi theme (which is eminently reasonable), the
shadow face and font-lock-comment-face are equal.  So it's hard to
distinguish commented-out code from (presumably) unnecessary code.

Here's a concrete suggestion: when a language server diagnostic says
some code is "unnecessary", then apply _both_
eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face and the usual Flymake face, with
that order of priority.  If the user so wishes, they can use
eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face to override any attribute of the
flymake-* faces.  But, by default, the eglot-diagnostic-tag-* faces are
best kept empty.

Message #11 received at 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
To: arstoffel <at> gmail.com
Cc: joaotavora <at> gmail.com, 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58141: [Eglot] Default
 eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face is problematic'
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2023 16:00:45 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

This was a while back, but in any case this is my suggestion for this
face.  I haven't seen eglot-diagnostic-tag-deprecated-face appear in
nature so I'm not sure how well it works.

[0001-Improve-eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #14 received at 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58141: [Eglot] Default eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face
 is problematic'
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:59:29 +0000

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 3:00 PM Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This was a while back, but in any case this is my suggestion for this
> face.  I haven't seen eglot-diagnostic-tag-deprecated-face appear in
> nature so I'm not sure how well it works.

I'm not a fan of hardcoding colors in Eglot, since that needs themes
to update for the new face.  Supporting the optional underline is
probably fine, though.

João

Message #17 received at 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58141: [Eglot] Default
 eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face is problematic'
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:55:20 +0100

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:59, João Távora wrote:

> I'm not a fan of hardcoding colors in Eglot, since that needs themes
> to update for the new face.  Supporting the optional underline is
> probably fine, though.

Okay, but the current choice (inherit from shadow) is also not a safe
one with respect to themes.  So I'd say the next best thing is to make
that face inherit from flymake-note or flymake-warning.

Message #20 received at 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 58141 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58141: [Eglot] Default eglot-diagnostic-tag-unnecessary-face
 is problematic'
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:10:08 +0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:55 PM Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:59, João Távora wrote:
>
> > I'm not a fan of hardcoding colors in Eglot, since that needs themes
> > to update for the new face.  Supporting the optional underline is
> > probably fine, though.
>
> Okay, but the current choice (inherit from shadow) is also not a safe
> one with respect to themes.

That's a problem with theme.  The default theme has a good setting
for "shadow", in my opinion.

João

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.