Strange error when subscribing to unhandled notifications

[Kethku]

Error invoking 'poll' on channel 92:^@ch 92 sent an invalid message, closed

I get the above error when registering commands like so:

using System;
using System.IO;

using NvimClient.API;
using NvimClient.API.NvimPlugin.Attributes;
using NvimClient.API.NvimPlugin.Parameters;

namespace Suggestions {
    [NvimPlugin]
    public class SuggestionsPlugin {
        private readonly NvimAPI nvim;
        private StreamWriter log;


        public SuggestionsPlugin(NvimAPI nvim) {
            this.nvim = nvim;
            log = File.AppendText("./logs");

            this.nvim.OnUnhandledNotification += UnhandledNotification;
        }

        [NvimFunction]
        public async void Test() {
            var currentBuffer = await this.nvim.GetCurrentBuf();
            currentBuffer.Attach(true, null);
            this.nvim.OnUnhandledNotification += UnhandledNotification;
        }

        public void UnhandledNotification(object sender, NvimUnhandledNotificationEventArgs args) {
            log.WriteLine(args.MethodName);
        }
    }
}

Any ideas whats going on? Its hard to debug this without much in the way of documentation/examples.

[justinmk]

I have neovim/neovim#8883 which should make the error more useful for this very reason. IIRC, the .net compiler is printing stuff to stdout or stderr, which obviously isn't valid msgpack.

Maybe it can be fixed by adjusting the dotnet invocations here: https://github.com/neovim/nvim.net/blob/23a123a/autoload/provider/dotnet.vim#L5-L12 (e.g. pass a --quiet arg or something like that)

[Kethku]

I wonder if a better strategy might be to build the executable and run the built dll directly instead of building to run. It would improve startup time too. It would also give something to place in the rplugin folder instead of just leaving an empty one...

That said, I don't fully understand everything going on :)

[justinmk]

That's quite possible. Help is certainly welcome...

[Kethku]

I'd love to help. Is this the best place to ask questions as I investigate?

[justinmk]

sure.

build the executable and run the built dll directly instead of building to run.

Maybe @b-r-o-c-k can comment on whether the current approach is intentional/required for some reason.