Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ease integration in Eclipse IDE #2423

Closed

Conversation

mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

Add a flag to be set by client to declare it's Eclipse IDE. When true:

  • didChange won't forward TextEdit to underlying resource model
  • Eclipse Log forwarding from LS to Eclipse IDE is disabled
  • Markers forwarding from LS to Eclipse IDE disabled

@snjeza
Copy link
Contributor

snjeza commented Jan 30, 2023

test this please

mickaelistria added a commit to redhat-developer/eclipseide-jdtls that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2023
* use flag proposed in
eclipse-jdtls/eclipse.jdt.ls#2423 to prevent undesired
"echo" of changes, markers, logs
* Added requirements to m2e and buildship to workaround
eclipse-jdtls/eclipse.jdt.ls#2429
* Updated TP to newer versions
* Updated Tycho version
* Currently added jdt-ls in same build as submodules to be able to used
the "good" branch, compatible with Eclipse IDE, ie including
  ** eclipse-jdtls/eclipse.jdt.ls#2423 and
  ** eclipse-jdtls/eclipse.jdt.ls#2417
@mickaelistria mickaelistria force-pushed the eclipse-flag branch 3 times, most recently from f4ea193 to ff47a1e Compare February 6, 2023 14:16
When running in Eclipse IDE workbench:
* didChange won't forward TextEdit to underlying resource model
* Eclipse Log forwarding from LS to Eclipse IDE is disabled
* Markers forwarding from LS to Eclipse IDE disabled
* Don't forward workspace folders, don't cleanup workspace
@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

In this new version of the patch, the flag is removed and instead JDT-LS detects that it is running with the Eclipse workbench. So no flag is necessary any more.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

mickaelistria commented Mar 9, 2023

After a discussion with @rgrunber , we'll refactor it:

I'll make separate patches for each.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm closing this one in favor of the 4 other patches.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants