Fix duplicate issues on provider usage #260
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes apex-dev-tools/tooling-issues#129
Some of the providers use
getValidationMapwhich involves callingvalidateagain on a given block/body. This would cause a duplicate issue to be saved, so these calls are suppressed by theVerifyContext.This requires calling
log,logErroretc. via the context (or children) rather than directly throughOrgInfo. Some of the CST types don't do this, and it is a lot more apparent now because we have the hover provider firing quite often (despite it only supporting a very limited number of symbols/cases).This should cover all the cst types, the issues are only disabled at the class body declaration level and below. So uses of
OrgInfoelsewhere in the TypeDeclaration likecreate/validatearen't getting suppressed, but the type already exists so...I had to do something a bit unusual passing context in to
block.statements()as it reports syntax/parser issues during construction of the block. But it is anOptionso if you were to construct it elsewhere without a context (e.g.RenameProvider) then it effectively suppresses the extra issues from coming out again.