[PATCH] D53032: [clangd] Minimal implementation of automatic static index, behind a flag.

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

sammccall added inline comments.


================
Comment at: unittests/clangd/BackgroundIndexTests.cpp:14
+
+TEST(BackgroundIndexTest, IndexesOneFile) {
+  MockFSProvider FS;
----------------
ioeric wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > ioeric wrote:
> > > sammccall wrote:
> > > > ioeric wrote:
> > > > > Also add a test for `enqueueAll` with multiple TUs ?
> > > > Is it important to call `enqueueAll` specifically vs `enqueue` multiple times?
> > > > 
> > > > We don't have a good test fixture for a compilation database, and `enqueueAll` is trivial...
> > > I think the randomization code worths a test. 
> > > 
> > > How about adding a test in ClangdServer with the auto index enabled? I think we'd also want coverage in ClangdServer anyway.
> > How would you suggest testing the randomization :-)
> > 
> > The problem with a ClangdServer test is that it doesn't know anything about autoindex.
> > AutoIndex lives in ClangdLSPServer, because that's where the compilation database lives (because people keep cramming LSP extensions in to manipulate it, and I haven't been able to remove them).
> > Nobody has worked out how to test ClangdLSPServer yet. It's a worthy project, but...
> > How would you suggest testing the randomization :-)
> Not suggesting testing the behavior; just test that it works really. I guess a single file would also do it.
> 
> > The problem with a ClangdServer test is that it doesn't know anything about autoindex.
> Ah, I see. That's a bit unfortunate. ClangdServer seems to be a better place for the auto index. I wonder if we could move AutoIndex into ClangdServer? I'm not very familiar with CDB APIs, but intuitively this seems doable if we tweak the interface of CDB a bit e.g. inject the callback into `GlobalCompilationDatabase` without going through `CompilationDB`? Not sure if how well this would play with the CDB design though.
> ClangdServer seems to be a better place for the auto index
I fully agree.

>  I wonder if we could move AutoIndex into ClangdServer? I'm not very familiar with CDB APIs...
Currently the global CDB is trying to be all things to all people:
 - by default, it follows Tooling conventions and looks for compile_commands above the source files
 - google's hosted option wants it to be completely opaque, no indexing
 - apple wants it to be an in-memory store mutated over LSP
 - ericsson wants it to be a fixed directory set by the user

And we've implemented these in ad-hoc ways, not behind any real abstraction. I don't think adding more functionality to the interface without addressing this is a great idea, and I don't really know how to untangle all this without asking people to rethink their use cases. But I'll think about this some more.


Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D53032