Update Integrations documentation page with ruff server explanation and setup guides

[snowsignal]

No description provided.

[charliermarsh]

A few questions before I dig into the copy:

1. As mentioned in Discord, should we move any ruff-lsp documentation that doesn't already exist in the ruff-lsp README to that README, so we're not losing anything useful?

2. Should this be replacing the setup guides and documentation that you have in the ruff-server crate? If not, why not? What's the difference?

[snowsignal]

@charliermarsh

1. As mentioned in Discord, should we move any ruff-lsp documentation that doesn't already exist in the ruff-lsp README to that README, so we're not losing anything useful?

We should, though I plan to also keep around the deprecated documentation in the Integration page for a little while longer under its own section.

2. Should this be replacing the setup guides and documentation that you have in the ruff-server crate? If not, why not? What's the difference?

We could probably remove the setup guides, yes. Those have just been copy-pasted.

[MichaReiser]

It seems that our documentation doesn't support more than one top-level heading per page.

• The navigation entry is Integrations but the page title is Editor Integrations
• Editor Integrations doesn't show up in the navigation
• The entire Other integrations sub menu is missing

Can you try keeping Integrations as the page header and use ## for Editor integrations and Other integrations (and reduce the heading of all other sub-headings).

We should probably also hide the sub-headers in the neovim section from the navigation.

[MichaReiser]

I would remove the mention of ruff-lsp from here. I worry that it is more confusing than helpful for users that just want to set up their IDE.

We could even argue that for most users, the entire Ruff Language Server section isn't relevant if, all they want to do, is set up their VS code.

[snowsignal]

I think the added context about the language server would be helpful for users using editors besides VS Code. I'm open to removing the mention of ruff-lsp here, but I think we should still document it in its deprecated state.

[MichaReiser]

That makes sense. To me, the mentioning in

Other editors may support the legacy ruff-lsp server; see the ruff-lsp documentation for more.

seems sufficient.

[charliermarsh]

I think we should consider documenting all of the supported LSP settings here (it could be similar to what we have in the VS Code README). As-is, I don't think that documentation is available anywhere, or is it?

[snowsignal]

@charliermarsh We cover the settings that were added/remove in the migration guide, but it isn't a comprehensive list. I agree that having a complete settings guide would make sense for this document.

[charliermarsh]

Should the migration guide also be part of the published documentation?

[snowsignal]

I'd rather link to it than add it to the documentation itself.

[dhruvmanila]

Closing in favor of #12344