When the elaborator doesn't provide us with any `CompletionInfo`, we
currently provide no completions whatsoever. But in many cases, we can
still provide some helpful identifier completions without elaborator
information. This PR adds a fallback mode for this situation.
There is more potential here, but this should be a good start.
In principle, this issue alleviates #5172 (since we now provide
completions in these contexts). I'll leave it up to an elaboration
maintainer whether we also want to ensure that the completion infos are
provided correctly in these cases.
Fixes#4455, fixes#4705, fixes#5219
Also fixes a minor bug where a dot in brackets would report incorrect
completions instead of no completions.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
This fixes an issue where the completion would use info nodes before the
cursor for computing completions.
Fixes https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/3462.
ToDo:
- [x] Fix test failures for completions that previously worked by
accident (cc: @Kha)
- [x] stage0 update
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
This coercion caused difficult-to-diagnose bugs sometimes. Because there
are some situations where converting a string to a name should be done
by parsing the string, and others where it should not, an explicit
choice seems better here.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
This PR addresses several performance issues in the auto-completion
implementation. It also fixes a number of smaller bugs related to
auto-completion.
In a file with `import Mathlib`, the performance of various kinds of
completions has improved as follows:
- Completing `C`: 49000ms -> 1400ms
- Completing `Cat`: 14300ms -> 1000ms
- Completing `x.` for `x : Nat`: 3700ms -> 220ms
- Completing `.` for an expected type of `Nat`: 11000ms -> 180ms
The following bugs have been fixed as well:
- VS Code never used our custom completion order. Now, the server fuzzy
completion score decides the order that completions appear in.
- Dot auto-completion for private types did not work at all. It does
now.
- Completing `.<identifier>` (where the expected type is used to infer
the namespace) did not filter by the expected type and instead displayed
all matching constants in the respective namespace. Now, it uses the
expected type for filtering. Note that this is not perfect because
sub-namespaces are technically correct completions as well (e.g.
`.Foo.foobar`). Implementing this is future work.
- Completing `.` was often not possible at all. Now, as long as the `.`
is not used in a bracket (where it may be used for the anonymous lambda
feature, e.g. `(. + 1)`), it triggers the correct completion.
- Fixes#3228.
- The auto-completion in `#check` commands would always try to complete
identifiers using the full declaration name (including namespaces) if it
could be resolved. Now it simply uses the identifier itself in case
users want to complete this identifier to another identifier.
## Details
Regarding completion performance, I have more ideas on how to improve it
further in the future.
Other changes:
- The feature that completions with a matching expected type are sorted
to the top of the server-side ordering was removed. This was never
enabled in VS Code because it would use its own completion item order
and when testing it I found it to be more confusing than useful.
- In the server-side ordering, we would always display keywords at the
top of the list. They are now displayed according to their fuzzy match
score as well.
The following approaches have been used to improve performance:
- Pretty-printing the type for every single completion made up a
significant amount of the time needed to compute the completions. We now
do not pretty-print the type for every single completion that is offered
to the user anymore. Instead, the language server now supports
`completionItem/resolve` requests to compute the type lazily when the
user selects a completion item.
- Note that we need to keep the amount of properties that we compute in
a resolve request to a minimum. When the server receives the resolve
request, the document state may have changed from the state it was in
when the initial auto-completion request was received. LSP doesn't tell
us when it will stop sending resolve requests, so we cannot keep this
state around, as we would have to keep it around forever.
LSP's solution for this dilemma is to have servers send all the state
they need to compute a response to a resolve request to the client as
part of the initial auto completion response (which then sends it back
as part of the resolve request), but this is clearly infeasible for all
real language servers where the amount of state needed to resolve a
request is massive.
This means that the only practical solution is to use the current state
to compute a response to the resolve request, which may yield an
incorrect result. This scenario can especially occur when using
LiveShare where the document is edited by another person while cycling
through available completions.
- Request handlers can now specify a "header caching handler" that is
called after elaborating the header of a file. Request handlers can use
this caching handler to compute caches for information stored in the
header. The auto-completion uses this to pre-compute non-blacklisted
imported declarations, which in turn allow us to iterate only over
non-blacklisted imported declarations where we would before iterate over
all declarations in the environment. This is significant because
blacklisted declarations make up about 4/5 of all declarations.
- Dot completion now looks up names modulo private prefixes to figure
out whether a declaration is in the namespace of the type to the left of
the dot instead of first stripping the private prefix from the name and
then comparing it. This has the benefit that we do not need to scan the
full name in most cases.
This PR also adds a couple of regression tests for fixed bugs, but *no
benchmarks*. We will add these in the future when we add proper support
for benchmarking server interaction sessions to our benchmarking
architecture.
All tests that were broken by producing different completion output
(empty `detail` field, added `sortText?` and `data?` fields) have been
manually checked by me to be still correct before replacing their
expected output.
