Files
llvm/lldb/source/Utility/CompletionRequest.cpp

94 lines
3.6 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Refactoring for for the internal command line completion API (NFC) Summary: This patch refactors the internal completion API. It now takes (as far as possible) a single CompletionRequest object instead o half a dozen in/out/in-out parameters. The CompletionRequest contains a common superset of the different parameters as far as it makes sense. This includes the raw command line string and raw cursor position, which should make the `expr` command possible to implement (at least without hacks that reconstruct the command line from the args). This patch is not intended to change the observable behavior of lldb in any way. It's also as minimal as possible and doesn't attempt to fix all the problems the API has. Some Q&A: Q: Why is this not fixing all the problems in the completion API? A: Because is a blocker for the expr command completion which I want to get in ASAP. This is the smallest patch that unblocks the expr completion patch and which allows trivial refactoring in the future. The patch also doesn't really change the internal information flow in the API, so that hopefully saves us from ever having to revert and resubmit this humongous patch. Q: Can we merge all the copy-pasted code in the completion methods (like computing the current incomplete arg) into CompletionRequest class? A: Yes, but it's out of scope for this patch. Q: Why the `word_complete = request.GetWordComplete(); ... ` pattern? A: I don't want to add a getter that returns a reference to the internal integer. So we have to use a temporary variable and the Getter/Setter instead. We don't throw exceptions from what I can tell, so the behavior doesn't change. Q: Why are we not owning the list of matches? A: Because that's how the previous API works. But that should be fixed too (in another patch). Q: Can we make the constructor simpler and compute some of the values from the plain command? A: I think this works, but I rather want to have this in a follow up commit. Especially when making nested request it's a bit awkward that the parsed arguments behave as both input/output (as we should in theory propagate the changes on the nested request back to the parent request if we don't want to change the behavior too much). Q: Can't we pass one const request object and then just return another result object instead of mixing them together in one in/out parameter? A: It's hard to get keep the same behavior with that pattern, but I think we can also get a nice API with just a single request object. If we make all input parameters read-only, we have a clear separation between what is actually an input and what an output parameter (and hopefully we get rid of the in-out parameters). Q: Can we throw out the 'match' variables that are not implemented according to the comment? A: We currently just forward them as in the old code to the different methods, even though I think they are really not used. We can easily remove and readd them once every single completion method just takes a CompletionRequest, but for now I prefer NFC behavior from the perspective of the API user. Reviewers: davide, jingham, labath Reviewed By: jingham Subscribers: mgorny, friss, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48796 llvm-svn: 336146
2018-07-02 21:29:56 +00:00
//===-- CompletionRequest.cpp -----------------------------------*- C++ -*-===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "lldb/Utility/CompletionRequest.h"
using namespace lldb;
using namespace lldb_private;
CompletionRequest::CompletionRequest(llvm::StringRef command_line,
unsigned raw_cursor_pos,
Refactoring for for the internal command line completion API (NFC) Summary: This patch refactors the internal completion API. It now takes (as far as possible) a single CompletionRequest object instead o half a dozen in/out/in-out parameters. The CompletionRequest contains a common superset of the different parameters as far as it makes sense. This includes the raw command line string and raw cursor position, which should make the `expr` command possible to implement (at least without hacks that reconstruct the command line from the args). This patch is not intended to change the observable behavior of lldb in any way. It's also as minimal as possible and doesn't attempt to fix all the problems the API has. Some Q&A: Q: Why is this not fixing all the problems in the completion API? A: Because is a blocker for the expr command completion which I want to get in ASAP. This is the smallest patch that unblocks the expr completion patch and which allows trivial refactoring in the future. The patch also doesn't really change the internal information flow in the API, so that hopefully saves us from ever having to revert and resubmit this humongous patch. Q: Can we merge all the copy-pasted code in the completion methods (like computing the current incomplete arg) into CompletionRequest class? A: Yes, but it's out of scope for this patch. Q: Why the `word_complete = request.GetWordComplete(); ... ` pattern? A: I don't want to add a getter that returns a reference to the internal integer. So we have to use a temporary variable and the Getter/Setter instead. We don't throw exceptions from what I can tell, so the behavior doesn't change. Q: Why are we not owning the list of matches? A: Because that's how the previous API works. But that should be fixed too (in another patch). Q: Can we make the constructor simpler and compute some of the values from the plain command? A: I think this works, but I rather want to have this in a follow up commit. Especially when making nested request it's a bit awkward that the parsed arguments behave as both input/output (as we should in theory propagate the changes on the nested request back to the parent request if we don't want to change the behavior too much). Q: Can't we pass one const request object and then just return another result object instead of mixing them together in one in/out parameter? A: It's hard to get keep the same behavior with that pattern, but I think we can also get a nice API with just a single request object. If we make all input parameters read-only, we have a clear separation between what is actually an input and what an output parameter (and hopefully we get rid of the in-out parameters). Q: Can we throw out the 'match' variables that are not implemented according to the comment? A: We currently just forward them as in the old code to the different methods, even though I think they are really not used. We can easily remove and readd them once every single completion method just takes a CompletionRequest, but for now I prefer NFC behavior from the perspective of the API user. Reviewers: davide, jingham, labath Reviewed By: jingham Subscribers: mgorny, friss, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48796 llvm-svn: 336146
2018-07-02 21:29:56 +00:00
int match_start_point,
int max_return_elements,
Add support for descriptions with command completions. Summary: This patch adds a framework for adding descriptions to the command completions we provide. It also adds descriptions for completed top-level commands so that we can test this code. Completions are in general supposed to be displayed alongside the completion itself. The descriptions can be used to provide additional information about the completion to the user. Examples for descriptions are function signatures when completing function calls in the expression command or the binary name when providing completion for a symbol. There is still some boilerplate code from the old completion API left in LLDB (mostly because the respective APIs are reused for non-completion related purposes, so the CompletionRequest doesn't make sense to be used), so that's why I still had to change some function signatures. Also, as the old API only passes around a list of matches, and the descriptions are for these functions just another list, I had to add some code that essentially just ensures that both lists are always the same side (e.g. all the manual calls to `descriptions->AddString(X)` below a `matches->AddString(Y)` call). The initial command descriptions that come with this patch are just reusing the existing short help that is already added in LLDB. An example completion with descriptions looks like this: ``` (lldb) pl Available completions: platform -- Commands to manage and create platforms. plugin -- Commands for managing LLDB plugins. ``` Reviewers: #lldb, jingham Reviewed By: #lldb, jingham Subscribers: jingham, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175 llvm-svn: 342181
2018-09-13 21:26:00 +00:00
CompletionResult &result)
: m_command(command_line), m_raw_cursor_pos(raw_cursor_pos),
Refactoring for for the internal command line completion API (NFC) Summary: This patch refactors the internal completion API. It now takes (as far as possible) a single CompletionRequest object instead o half a dozen in/out/in-out parameters. The CompletionRequest contains a common superset of the different parameters as far as it makes sense. This includes the raw command line string and raw cursor position, which should make the `expr` command possible to implement (at least without hacks that reconstruct the command line from the args). This patch is not intended to change the observable behavior of lldb in any way. It's also as minimal as possible and doesn't attempt to fix all the problems the API has. Some Q&A: Q: Why is this not fixing all the problems in the completion API? A: Because is a blocker for the expr command completion which I want to get in ASAP. This is the smallest patch that unblocks the expr completion patch and which allows trivial refactoring in the future. The patch also doesn't really change the internal information flow in the API, so that hopefully saves us from ever having to revert and resubmit this humongous patch. Q: Can we merge all the copy-pasted code in the completion methods (like computing the current incomplete arg) into CompletionRequest class? A: Yes, but it's out of scope for this patch. Q: Why the `word_complete = request.GetWordComplete(); ... ` pattern? A: I don't want to add a getter that returns a reference to the internal integer. So we have to use a temporary variable and the Getter/Setter instead. We don't throw exceptions from what I can tell, so the behavior doesn't change. Q: Why are we not owning the list of matches? A: Because that's how the previous API works. But that should be fixed too (in another patch). Q: Can we make the constructor simpler and compute some of the values from the plain command? A: I think this works, but I rather want to have this in a follow up commit. Especially when making nested request it's a bit awkward that the parsed arguments behave as both input/output (as we should in theory propagate the changes on the nested request back to the parent request if we don't want to change the behavior too much). Q: Can't we pass one const request object and then just return another result object instead of mixing them together in one in/out parameter? A: It's hard to get keep the same behavior with that pattern, but I think we can also get a nice API with just a single request object. If we make all input parameters read-only, we have a clear separation between what is actually an input and what an output parameter (and hopefully we get rid of the in-out parameters). Q: Can we throw out the 'match' variables that are not implemented according to the comment? A: We currently just forward them as in the old code to the different methods, even though I think they are really not used. We can easily remove and readd them once every single completion method just takes a CompletionRequest, but for now I prefer NFC behavior from the perspective of the API user. Reviewers: davide, jingham, labath Reviewed By: jingham Subscribers: mgorny, friss, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48796 llvm-svn: 336146
2018-07-02 21:29:56 +00:00
m_match_start_point(match_start_point),
Add support for descriptions with command completions. Summary: This patch adds a framework for adding descriptions to the command completions we provide. It also adds descriptions for completed top-level commands so that we can test this code. Completions are in general supposed to be displayed alongside the completion itself. The descriptions can be used to provide additional information about the completion to the user. Examples for descriptions are function signatures when completing function calls in the expression command or the binary name when providing completion for a symbol. There is still some boilerplate code from the old completion API left in LLDB (mostly because the respective APIs are reused for non-completion related purposes, so the CompletionRequest doesn't make sense to be used), so that's why I still had to change some function signatures. Also, as the old API only passes around a list of matches, and the descriptions are for these functions just another list, I had to add some code that essentially just ensures that both lists are always the same side (e.g. all the manual calls to `descriptions->AddString(X)` below a `matches->AddString(Y)` call). The initial command descriptions that come with this patch are just reusing the existing short help that is already added in LLDB. An example completion with descriptions looks like this: ``` (lldb) pl Available completions: platform -- Commands to manage and create platforms. plugin -- Commands for managing LLDB plugins. ``` Reviewers: #lldb, jingham Reviewed By: #lldb, jingham Subscribers: jingham, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175 llvm-svn: 342181
2018-09-13 21:26:00 +00:00
m_max_return_elements(max_return_elements), m_result(result) {
// We parse the argument up to the cursor, so the last argument in
// parsed_line is the one containing the cursor, and the cursor is after the
// last character.
m_parsed_line = Args(command_line);
m_partial_parsed_line = Args(command_line.substr(0, raw_cursor_pos));
m_cursor_index = m_partial_parsed_line.GetArgumentCount() - 1;
if (m_cursor_index == -1)
m_cursor_char_position = 0;
else
m_cursor_char_position =
strlen(m_partial_parsed_line.GetArgumentAtIndex(m_cursor_index));
const char *cursor = command_line.data() + raw_cursor_pos;
if (raw_cursor_pos > 0 && cursor[-1] == ' ') {
// We are just after a space. If we are in an argument, then we will
// continue parsing, but if we are between arguments, then we have to
// complete whatever the next element would be. We can distinguish the two
// cases because if we are in an argument (e.g. because the space is
// protected by a quote) then the space will also be in the parsed
// argument...
const char *current_elem =
m_partial_parsed_line.GetArgumentAtIndex(m_cursor_index);
if (m_cursor_char_position == 0 ||
current_elem[m_cursor_char_position - 1] != ' ') {
m_parsed_line.InsertArgumentAtIndex(m_cursor_index + 1, llvm::StringRef(),
'\0');
m_cursor_index++;
m_cursor_char_position = 0;
}
}
}
Add support for descriptions with command completions. Summary: This patch adds a framework for adding descriptions to the command completions we provide. It also adds descriptions for completed top-level commands so that we can test this code. Completions are in general supposed to be displayed alongside the completion itself. The descriptions can be used to provide additional information about the completion to the user. Examples for descriptions are function signatures when completing function calls in the expression command or the binary name when providing completion for a symbol. There is still some boilerplate code from the old completion API left in LLDB (mostly because the respective APIs are reused for non-completion related purposes, so the CompletionRequest doesn't make sense to be used), so that's why I still had to change some function signatures. Also, as the old API only passes around a list of matches, and the descriptions are for these functions just another list, I had to add some code that essentially just ensures that both lists are always the same side (e.g. all the manual calls to `descriptions->AddString(X)` below a `matches->AddString(Y)` call). The initial command descriptions that come with this patch are just reusing the existing short help that is already added in LLDB. An example completion with descriptions looks like this: ``` (lldb) pl Available completions: platform -- Commands to manage and create platforms. plugin -- Commands for managing LLDB plugins. ``` Reviewers: #lldb, jingham Reviewed By: #lldb, jingham Subscribers: jingham, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175 llvm-svn: 342181
2018-09-13 21:26:00 +00:00
std::string CompletionResult::Completion::GetUniqueKey() const {
// We build a unique key for this pair of completion:description. We
// prefix the key with the length of the completion string. This prevents
// that we could get any collisions from completions pairs such as these:
// "foo:", "bar" would be "foo:bar", but will now be: "4foo:bar"
// "foo", ":bar" would be "foo:bar", but will now be: "3foo:bar"
std::string result;
result.append(std::to_string(m_completion.size()));
result.append(m_completion);
result.append(m_descripton);
return result;
}
void CompletionResult::AddResult(llvm::StringRef completion,
llvm::StringRef description) {
Completion r(completion, description);
// Add the completion if we haven't seen the same value before.
if (m_added_values.insert(r.GetUniqueKey()).second)
m_results.push_back(r);
}
void CompletionResult::GetMatches(StringList &matches) const {
matches.Clear();
for (const Completion &completion : m_results)
matches.AppendString(completion.m_completion);
}
void CompletionResult::GetDescriptions(StringList &descriptions) const {
descriptions.Clear();
for (const Completion &completion : m_results)
descriptions.AppendString(completion.m_descripton);
}