Introduce clangd C++ API to emit the current status of file
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCTE Clang Tools Extra
- Build Status
Buildable 25755 Build 25754: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
The code is not polished yet, I'd like to get some high-level comments before moving further. Here is a quick vim demo.
Have you considered moving all status updates into the TUScheduler?
TUScheduler has full information about the file status changes, so it seems to most natural place to provide this kind of information.
clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
787 ↗ | (On Diff #174915) | we should have a protocol model object (in Protocol.h) for the file status updates. I think it should *likely* it should be distinct from the FileStatus in TUScheduler - optimizing for easy update/comparison and programmatic checks vs optimizing for matching the desired protocol. Naming is hard, I'd be tempted to take FileStatus for the protocol object and and make the TUScheduler one something more obscure like TUScheduler::TUState. Unclear to me which one ClangdServer should expose, my *guess* is we should start by exposing the protocol object, and switch if it doesn't capture enough of the semantics that embedders need. |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
352 | So I'm slightly nervous about just emitting objects directly. The problem is if you have independent properties (e.g. "is using a fallback command" vs "are we computing diagnostics"), then it's a burden on the code here to pass them all every time and a burden on the callback code if you don't. I think one solution (which *may* be what Ilya's suggesting) is to put a mutable FileStatus object in the ASTWorker, and mutate it in place and then invoke the callback, passing the const FileStatus&. |
Thanks for the comment, the patch should be ready for review.
There is one thing I'm not certain: should we stop emitting the file status when the file is removed (similar to the behavior of diagnostics)? For example, the file is removed while the AST is building. The current behavior of the patch will emit them.
clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
787 ↗ | (On Diff #174915) | SG. Moved FileStatus to Protocol.h. |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
352 | ASTWorker seems the right place for FileStatus, given that interesting statuses are in ASTWorker::update, I think a local FileStatus should be good enough. ASTWorker is not sufficient to emit all interesting statuses -- at least for PreparingBuild, we invoke getCompileCommand in ClangdServer::addDocument... |
Hi @hokein, I am just keeping up to date with changes.
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
40 | It would be unfortunate to have this name clashing with clang::DiagnosticsConsumer indeed. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
374 | Wouldn't some different failure status like FileStatusKind::FailedBuild be appropriate here? |
It would be reasonable to be consistent with diagnostics: stop emitting the statuses when ASTWorker was put into shutdown mode.
However, the clients will still need to handle statuses for "removed" files somehow: the notifications in the LSP are inherently racy, IIUC there's no way to serialize removeFile and status updates if we're processing the requests in a (truly) asynchronous manner.
It would be reasonable to be consistent with diagnostics: stop emitting the statuses when ASTWorker was put into shutdown mode.
Thanks, sounds fair.
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
40 | yeah, I plan to rename it later (when the patch gets stable enough). FileEventConsumer is a candidate. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
374 | The failure status is grouped into FileStatus::messages. I think messages provide enough information to users (if there are something wrong when building the file). |
clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
787 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | notifying via showMessage looks sensible at first glance as a fallback. Can you verify that showMessage is a statusbar-type message and not a dialog in VSCode? |
787 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | At the moment you've got FileStatus seralizing into the wire format of ShowMessageParams which seems at least odd. We should define and pass ShowMessageParams here, and the transformation from FileStatus -> ShowMessageParams should be explicit (a named function or maybe better: inlined here) as it has a different semantic meaning than just toJSON. If the plan is to expose the FileStatus object but you're not going to do so in this patch, I think it's OK to leave it in Protocol.h - though we should review its structure as if we were going to expose it. |
clangd/ClangdServer.cpp | ||
151 | Can you explain how this should be implemented? If we can't implement it, fine, but this FIXME suggests it just isn't done yet. | |
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
40 | The name/problem isn't new; can we do the rename in a separate patch? (before or after). It may have a blast radius in tests etc. (I'm not sure about FileEventConsumer as it's easily confused with something that watches for file changes on disk. My suggestion would be CompilationWatcher or TUWatcher or something) | |
49 | we should have PathRef File here too, for consistency. It's redundant with FileStatus::uri but I think that field is actually a layering violation: DiagnosticsConsumer knows about file paths, not URIs. The more I think about this, the more I think we should move FileStatus to the ClangdServer or TUScheduler layer and exclude URI. If we later want to expose the info via LSP we should define a separate struct in Protocol. WDYT? | |
clangd/Protocol.h | ||
937 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | "StatusKind" doesn't carry much meaning. I'd suggest calling this FileAction instead. In this case you may consider renaming Ready -> Idle (as "ready" doesn't really tell you what the action is/isn't). |
943 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | "ready" also seems a little strong: if a file failed to build, it will be in this state but isn't really "ready" for anything. |
947 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | (I think this comment doesn't quite make sense: window/showMessage is only revelant to clients that receive JSON, and the JSON doesn't follow this structure) |
957 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | Some of the most important messages we need to show are warnings (failed compilation, fallback command). These deserve some visual indicator in the client. I'd suggest either splitting these up into vector<string> messages, vector<string> warnings, or adding a severity. |
957 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | in fact, I'm not sure vector<string> is the right model here at all (for the implementation in TUScheduler) - what happens when you have multiple messages produced at different places? |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
269 | Why a new mutex rather than reusing ReportDiagnostics? | |
354 | this seems like it could be a method on ASTWorker instead? | |
419 | This looks like the wrong layer to me. Suppose you have a queue like this: [update] [go to def] [update] [go to def] As implemented, your status is going to be This makes me think:
|
- address review comments
- drop the LSP change, only focus on TUScheduler in this patch
@ilya-biryukov, I hope the current patch is not too big for you to review, happy to chat offline if you want (sam and I had a lot of discussions before he is OOO).
clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
787 ↗ | (On Diff #175277) | On the second thought, solving the LSP is not the main goal of this patch, so I drop this part out (will send out a follow-up patch on the LSP part). |
clangd/ClangdServer.cpp | ||
151 | Given the current code, we can't implement it, but I do think this status is valuable (especially for some build system that might be slow to prepare the building environment). Rephased the FIXME, and removed this state in the struct definition (to avoid misleading). | |
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
49 | Done, use File in the interface for consistency.
That sounds good. The FileStatus aims to be the LSP structure in this patch. I agree we should have a dedicate structure which represents the internal status of TU/file. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
419 | A sensible status for [update] [go to def] would be queued buildingPreamble buildingFile RunningAction(GoToDef) |
@ilya-biryukov, I hope the current patch is not too big for you to review, happy to chat offline if you want (sam and I had a lot of discussions before he is OOO).
Picking it up. Mostly NITs from my side and a few questions to better understand the design. Also happy to chat offline.
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
40 | ClangdServerCallbacks? xD | |
49 | Have we thought about the way we might expose statuses via the LSP? | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
209 | Naming: emitTUStatus? | |
242 | Maybe add a GUARDED_BY(DiagMu) comment? | |
594 | Code style: remove braces around a single-statement if branch | |
651 | NIT: remove braces? | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
60 | What's the fundamental difference between BuildingFile and RunningAction? Maybe we could squash those two together? One can view diagnostics as an action on the AST, similar to a direct LSP request like findReferences. | |
64 | Maybe set default value to avoid unexpected undefined behavior in case someone forget to initialize the field? | |
73 | NIT: maybe clarify: indicates whether clang failed... or similar? | |
74 | Naming: should this be BuildFailed? | |
75 | NIT: should this be reused? | |
76 | ReuseAST? | |
unittests/clangd/TUSchedulerTests.cpp | ||
724 | It seems we could make this test deterministic if we:
|
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
49 |
Yes, this is by design. TUStatus presents the internal states of clangd, and would not be exposed via LSP. Some ways of exposing status via the LSP
| |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
60 | They are two different states, you can think RunningAction means the AST worker starts processing a task (for example Update, GoToDefinition) and BuildingFile means building the AST (which is one possible step when processing the task). In the current implementation, BuildingPreamble and BuildingFile are only emitted when AST worker processes the Update task (as we are mostly interested in TU states of ASTWorker::update); for other AST tasks, we just emit RunningAction which should be enough. Given the following requests in the worker queue: statuses we emitted are RunningAction(Update) BuildingPreamble BuildingFile | |
64 | Done. |
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
49 | LG, I believe the BuildingPreamble status in particular might be useful on the C++ API level for us. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
269 | The comment duplicates the code, maybe remove it? | |
270 | Is Status actually ever read from multiple threads? PS Sorry go going back and forth, I didn't think about it in the previous review iteration. | |
591 | NIT: Maybe change Stop emitting to Do not emit? | |
651 | Maybe do it outside the lock? The less dependencies between the locks we have, the better and this one seems unnecessary. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
57 | Maybe remove this value and leave out the default constructor too? | |
60 | That's the confusing part: clangd might be building the ASTs inside RunningAction too, but we only choose to report BuildingFile during updates. | |
66 | Ah, the annoying part about member initializers :-( | |
unittests/clangd/TUSchedulerTests.cpp | ||
703 | Using a single matcher with two params could improve readability, e.g. ElementsAre(TUState(TUAction::Queued, ""), TUState(TUAction::RunningAction, "Update"), ...) Feel free to leave as is if you like the current one better, of course. Just a suggestion. |
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
49 | showMessage seems work well via vim YCM, but it is annoying in vscode (as it pops up diags) -- we need to customize this behavior in our own extensions (showing messages in status bar). We need to revisit different ways. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
270 | Unfortunately not, most statuses are emitted via worker thread, but we emit Queued status in the main thread... | |
651 | Is it safe to read the Requests out of the lock here? | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
57 | We need the default constructor... When ASTWorker is constructed, we don't know the any state, I'm nervous about putting any value as default value (it will hurt the code readability, future readers might be confused -- why the status is Queued when constructing). Adding an Unknown seems ok to me, it is a common practice... | |
60 | BuildingFile might be more natural (understandable) than Diagnostics. Two possible ways here:
WDYT? | |
66 | Yeap, if we use C++14, we can get rid of it. | |
unittests/clangd/TUSchedulerTests.cpp | ||
724 | Good suggestion, indeed it found a bug in the previous code... |
Sorry for the delays. Not sure about emitting Queued on the main thread, see the corresponding comment. Otherwise looks very good.
clangd/ClangdServer.h | ||
---|---|---|
49 | I'd err on the side of getting a new LSP method/extension that's supposed to show messages in the status bar. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
270 | Hm, that sounds surprising. The Queued request status between BuildingPreamble and RunningAction looks really weird. | |
651 | No, but we could store the value of .empty() in a local var under the lock. The code looks a bit weirder, but that's a small price to pay for less locks being held at the same time. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
57 | Idle would be the valid state for an ASTWorker with an empty queue. Why not use it instead? Can't disagree using Unknown is a common practice, but is it a good one? It forces every caller to handle this value, even though it's semantics are always unclear. | |
60 | If you look at the TUScheduler as a black box, diagnostics are not that much different from other actions reading the AST. Let's put a comment on BuildingFile that it's only emitted when building the AST for diagnostics and the read actions emit RunningAction instead |
Address review comments
- remove Unknown enum type
- make TUState only accessed by the worker thread.
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
270 | This sounds fair enough, and can simplify the code.
The Queued state is originally designed for the state that the worker thread is blocked by the max-concurrent-threads semaphore. | |
651 | SG. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
57 | Idle seems a compromising state for initialization. | |
60 | Done. added comment. |
LGTM, still have a few NITs and suggestions (see the comment about emitting "queued" on waiting for diagnostics and not emitting queued if the lock was acquired from the first try), but they don't look like something that should block this change.
clangd/TUScheduler.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
270 | Ah, good point, waiting on a barrier can definitely take some time and is a form of queuing that we might want to notify the clients about. Wrt to deciding on whether we should notify when waiting on a debounce timer or on acquiring a semaphore... Why not both? | |
421 | Should we also emit this status if we reuse the AST, but still report the diagnostics? | |
637 | See the other suggestion about emitting this status only when locking the barrier failed. | |
clangd/TUScheduler.h | ||
75 | NIT: start with a capital letter to be consistent with the rest of the codebase. | |
77 | NIT: start with a capital letter to be consistent with the rest of the codebase. |
It would be unfortunate to have this name clashing with clang::DiagnosticsConsumer indeed.
How about something like FileEventConsumer?