Intrepid/prometeu-studio
Intrepid/prometeu-studio
4
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Activity
prometeu-studio/discussion/workflow/agendas/AGD-0044-pbs-lsp-document-symbols-and-outline.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

2.2 KiB
Raw Blame History

id ticket title status created resolved decision tags
AGD-0044 pbs-lsp-document-symbols-outline PBS LSP Document Symbols and Outline open 2026-07-15
studio
lsp
vscode
compiler-pbs
editor
outline
document-symbols

Pain

Domain owner: studio/lsp

PBS files do not populate a reliable VS Code outline, forcing users to navigate long source files manually instead of scanning declarations and members structurally.

Context

The parser and semantic surfaces know top-level declarations and many member declarations. The LSP currently does not announce documentSymbolProvider and does not map PBS declarations to DocumentSymbol or SymbolInformation payloads.

Open Questions

  • Should the first outline be syntactic, semantic, or hybrid?
  • Which hierarchy should be shown for structs, services, hosts, contracts, builtin types, enums, and methods?
  • How should invalid or partially parsed files contribute to outline during editing?

Options

Option A - AST-only outline

  • Approach: Map parsed declarations and member spans directly to LSP DocumentSymbol.
  • Pro: Works even when semantic analysis is incomplete and gives immediate editor value.
  • Con: Cannot classify every symbol with semantic precision.
  • Maintainability: Good if kept as structural outline, not overloaded with semantic behavior.

Option B - Semantic outline

  • Approach: Build outline from semantic symbols after analysis.
  • Pro: More accurate kinds and can hide invalid/unresolved surfaces.
  • Con: More fragile during active editing and depends on full semantic success.
  • Maintainability: Good for final precision, but heavier than needed for outline.

Tradeoffs

Outline should remain available during broken intermediate edits. Semantic precision is useful, but not at the cost of disappearing structure while typing.

Recommendation

Prefer Option A with semantic enrichment where available. Use AST spans as the stable backbone.

Discussion

Document symbols are relatively independent and can be implemented before definition/references.

Resolution

Ainda em aberto.

Next Step

Decide hierarchy and symbol kinds for PBS declarations and members.