Intrepid/prometeu-studio
Intrepid/prometeu-studio
4
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Activity
prometeu-studio/discussion/workflow/agendas/AGD-0046-pbs-lsp-rename-symbol.md
bQUARKz 6e594c15d7
All checks were successful
JaCoCo Coverage #### Project Overview No changes detected, that affect the code coverage. * Line Coverage: 61.37% (17351/28272) * Branch Coverage: 52.31% (6722/12850) * Lines of Code: 28272 * Cyclomatic Complexity: 11325 #### Quality Gates Summary Output truncated.
Details
Test / Build skipped: 15, passed: 601
Details
Intrepid/Prometeu/Studio/pipeline/head This commit looks good
Details
add LSP agendas
2026-07-15 07:40:45 +01:00

2.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

id ticket title status created resolved decision tags
AGD-0046 pbs-lsp-rename-symbol PBS LSP Rename Symbol open 2026-07-15
studio
lsp
vscode
compiler-pbs
editor
rename

Pain

Domain owner: studio/lsp

PBS users cannot safely rename a symbol through the editor, so they must edit text manually and risk missing references or changing unrelated overloads and same-name declarations.

Context

Rename requires the same semantic identity and reference machinery needed by definition/references, plus workspace edits and conflict detection. The current LSP does not announce renameProvider.

Open Questions

  • Which symbols should be renameable in the first wave, and which should be protected such as stdlib, generated, host, or builtin declarations?
  • How should rename handle overloads, member methods, imports, and labels with the same text?
  • What validation should run before returning a WorkspaceEdit?

Options

Option A - Local file rename

  • Approach: Rename only references in the current file using local semantic resolution.
  • Pro: Smaller blast radius and easier conflict handling.
  • Con: Incomplete for imported symbols and project-wide APIs.
  • Maintainability: Acceptable only if explicitly presented as limited.

Option B - Workspace semantic rename

  • Approach: Use a project-wide reference index and return a WorkspaceEdit for all usage and declaration sites.
  • Pro: Matches user expectations for editor rename.
  • Con: Requires reliable references, collision checks, and write-safety across files.
  • Maintainability: Strong once references exist.

Tradeoffs

Rename is high trust. A partial or text-based rename can corrupt code silently, so scope must be explicit and conservative.

Recommendation

Prefer Option B after semantic references are implemented. If delivered earlier, ship only a clearly limited local rename.

Discussion

Do not implement rename before definition/references are resolved.

Resolution

Ainda em aberto.

Next Step

Decide whether rename waits for workspace references or ships a limited local-only wave.