IDE plugins

[gneray]

This is an external tracking issue to:

1. Gauge interest from the community for this feature
2. Learn about what you'd want to see out of it if we worked on it.

So please:

1. Upvote the issue if it's important to you, and
2. Comment with any relevant info on your requirements use cases, etc.

Thanks!

PS We do all our internal engineering issue tracking separately in Notion, so you won't necessarily see regular updates to the project status here even once we begin work.

[saolsen]

Pycharm support. #541

We've also had requests for Intellij and Webstorm in slack and I think if we had polar syntax support in Intellij it would work with all of them.

[ximon18]

VS Code please.

[saolsen]

VS Code please.

We have some vscode support already. Right now it's just syntax hi-lighting.

https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=osohq.oso

@ximon18 What would you like to see in the vscode plugin?

[ximon18]

@saolsen: Hi, yes I have the extension installed but completely forgot about it! Syntax highlighting is a great start, what would be a useful next step would be the ability to click through from the usage of a rule to the definition of the rule. This would also help with understanding what ?= test rules are invoking.

On the topic of test rules i find that the ?= statements that I have defined near the rules that they test are a "noisy" distraction when I want to just see the rules themselves. So perhaps a way to "fold" them out of sight or to dim them so that they are less prominent than the rules themselves?

And with multiple .polar files in a project perhaps it could be handy to visualize / list all .polar files in a sidebar view?

How about completion of valid next keywords, or (and this is language and client implementation specific so probably not easy or perhaps not even possible) also completion of client supplied methods on client supplied types?

Formatting to a standard format? (e.g. how would you format this?)

The colour theme could also do with more separate colours, e.g. this is a bit heavy on blue:

Perhaps a standard for showing "doc" comments above rules on hover using comments in the lines immediately preceeding a rule definition?

Popup documentation for in-built Polar keywords on hover? And/or links to the online documentation?

If I'm allowed to dream, immediate feedback of ?= test rule success or failure or perhaps even a means to evaluate rules in the IDE using given inputs.

Errm, I'll stop there for a moment and breathe :-)

[saolsen]

Awesome, thanks! These are really great suggestions!

[samscott89]

@ximon18 just getting a chance to go through this. This is fantastic feedback, and super helpful validation for us as we decide where to spend time.

would be a useful next step would be the ability to click through from the usage of a rule to the definition of the rule.

Definitely! Especially if multiple are defined, having a way to see all implementations of a rule would be great. And in the other direction too - see where a rule is used.

On the topic of test rules i find that the ?= statements that I have defined near the rules that they test are a "noisy" distraction when I want to just see the rules themselves

Interesting idea -- I hadn't thought of this. Maybe a configuration value or something to toggle this? If there was better support for navigation like you mentioned, would it make sense to put tests in a separate file?

And with multiple .polar files in a project perhaps it could be handy to visualize / list all .polar files in a sidebar view?

💯 want to do this

How about completion of valid next keywords, or (and this is language and client implementation specific so probably not easy or perhaps not even possible) also completion of client supplied methods on client supplied types?

The former, absolutely, the latter is a super tricky one. I agree it would be incredibly valuable though, so very much motivated to make it work.

Need to stop here, and will keep going in a bit! Thank you again <3

[ximon18]

If there was better support for navigation like you mentioned, would it make sense to put tests in a separate file?

Maybe, but if I recall correctly this didn't work when I tried it (with Oso 0.8.0 I think), there was some unknown type or reference or definition or rule issue or something.