Intrepid/prometeu-studio
Intrepid/prometeu-studio
4
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Activity
prometeu-studio/discussion/workflow/agendas/AGD-0052-pbs-lsp-completion-depth.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-0052 pbs-lsp-completion-depth PBS LSP Completion Depth open 2026-07-15
studio
lsp
vscode
compiler-pbs
editor
completion

Pain

Domain owner: studio/lsp

PBS completion works for core cases, but a complete daily-use experience needs ranking, resolve details, snippets, overload handling, context-aware suggestions, and richer documentation.

Context

The current LSP announces completion with trigger character '.' and returns detail/documentation for resolved compiler candidates. It does not use resolveProvider, snippets, broad trigger contexts, or advanced ranking.

Open Questions

  • Which completion contexts should be supported first beyond member access?
  • Should completion use resolveProvider for expensive documentation/details or return everything eagerly?
  • How should overloads, snippets, imports, keywords, and stdlib candidates be ranked?

Options

Option A - Eager rich completion

  • Approach: Return labels, details, docs, and snippets directly in every completion response.
  • Pro: Simple client behavior and immediate docs.
  • Con: Can become expensive for broad/global completion.
  • Maintainability: Good while candidate sets remain small.

Option B - Completion resolve provider

  • Approach: Return lightweight candidates first and populate expensive docs/details through completionItem/resolve.
  • Pro: Scales better for large candidate sets and import-aware suggestions.
  • Con: Requires client/server resolve plumbing and stable candidate identities.
  • Maintainability: Strong for a full LSP.

Tradeoffs

The current eager model is fine for scoped completions, but global/import-aware completion may need resolve to avoid latency.

Recommendation

Prefer a staged approach: keep eager for current contexts, design resolve before broad workspace/import completion.

Discussion

Define completion contexts and ranking before adding snippets or resolve.

Resolution

Ainda em aberto.

Next Step

List first-wave completion contexts beyond member access.