You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As described in #507 this command was succeeded by module.callers. The new command has much narrower scope and more appropriate name.
Proposal
It is proposed to deprecate the existing rootmodules command in favour of module.callers. Ideally clients (including the VS Code extension) should ask the server whether it supports certain commands before attempting to execute them, but I'm unsure whether this LSP convention is being followed.
Given that this command was historically used to "just" improve the UI, I'm thinking that returning error on execution should only mean that users are forced to type out module paths more often, but it shouldn't block anyone.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.
If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.
Current Version
Use-cases
As described in #507 this command was succeeded by
module.callers
. The new command has much narrower scope and more appropriate name.Proposal
It is proposed to deprecate the existing
rootmodules
command in favour ofmodule.callers
. Ideally clients (including the VS Code extension) should ask the server whether it supports certain commands before attempting to execute them, but I'm unsure whether this LSP convention is being followed.Given that this command was historically used to "just" improve the UI, I'm thinking that returning error on execution should only mean that users are forced to type out module paths more often, but it shouldn't block anyone.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: