GNU bug report logs -
#71504
30.0.50; FR: Fix suggestions ("quick fix") for Flymake diagnostics
Previous Next
Full log
Message #26 received at 71504 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
>> Cc: sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 71504 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 10:53:12 +0200
>>
>> >> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
>> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 71504 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> >> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:15:37 +0200
>> >>
>> >> Spencer Baugh <sbaugh <at> janestreet.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > For example, maybe we want to have a command which can accept fixes
>> >> > output by a process running in M-x compile. Baking the UI into flymake
>> >> > would make that impossible, wouldn't it?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think adding a command for fixing the diagnostic at point should
>> >> preclude any other developments or explorations. It's a useful thing to
>> >> have, and many Flymake backends have the needed data readily available.
>> >>
>> >> > So before any change in flymake I would like to see much more
>> >> > exploration of "fix" UIs which are genuinely flymake-independent.
>> >>
>> >> Flymake shows diagnostics, and "fixing" is what we do to diagnostics.
>> >> What would be the benefit of a Flymake-independent UI for fixing the
>> >> diagnostics that Flymake already shows?
>> >
>> > The benefit would be that we will be able to use that UI when "fixes"
>> > are shown in, for example, the *compilation* buffer.
>>
>> It'd be good to enhance compilation buffers as well, but this feature
>> request is about interaction with Flymake diagnostics, that are shown in
>> the diagnosed buffer: I'd like to have a standard way to act on (fix)
>> the diagnostic at point.
>
> I frankly don't understand what you are saying here. Several people
> opined that we should take a broader view on the fixes and how to
> handle them, but you insist that Flymake should have its own solution?
No. I only insist that there should be a command for fixing the
Flymake diagnostic at point. If it's part of a "broader solution",
that's swell.
> IOW, the "fixes" diagnostic shown by Flymake is not just diagnostic,
> it's a suggestion to make some change in the source code.
I think there is a misunderstanding here: it's not about specific
diagnostics which represent fixes, this is about enriching
(potentially) all diagnostics with backend-provided fix suggestions,
and adding a command that applies such fixes. For example, with my
implementation I use the same command for fixing checkdoc, shellcheck
and LSP diagnostics.
> So supporting that cannot be separated from the more general concept
> of making changes proposed by some external tool. Or what am I
> missing?
IIUC, I think I agree. In my implementation, Flymake delegates the
application of the code changes to another library, that includes a
general purpose function for applying code changes.
> Or maybe this is a simple misunderstanding: what do you mean by
> "acting on diagnostic at point"
Applying a suggested code change that resolves the diagnostic.
> , and how could such an act be indifferent to what and how is fixed?
A single command should let you fix diagnostics from different sources
(backends). It doesn't need to be indifferent, just consistent.
Does that make sense?
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 60 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.