Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate using in-box copies of packages in tools extensions by default #19302

Closed
karthiknadig opened this issue Jun 14, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
feature-request Request for new features or functionality needs proposal Need to make some design decisions verification-needed Verification of issue is requested verified Verification succeeded
Milestone

Comments

@karthiknadig
Copy link
Member

karthiknadig commented Jun 14, 2022

Handling In-Box vs Installed libraries in Tools Extensions

Proposed Setting

"pylint.importType": {
    "default": "bundled",
    "description": "Defines where `pylint` is imported from. This setting will be ignored if `pylint.path` is set.",
    "enum": [
        "bundled",
        "environment"
    ],
    "enumDescriptions": [
        "Always use the bundled version of `pylint`.",
        "Always used `pylint` from environment, fall back to bundled version when not available.",
    ],
    "scope": "<see scope proposal>",
    "type": "string"
},

Scope of the setting

Recommend scope is "window". User should be able to configure this just like python.languageServer.

Client-side changes

While creating the server launch command, client will add --import-type bundled to the server.py script.

Server-side changes

In the server, parse the arguments, handle as follows:

  • bundled: then insert bundled path at 0.
  • environment: then append bundled path to the end.
@karthiknadig karthiknadig added feature-request Request for new features or functionality needs proposal Need to make some design decisions labels Jun 14, 2022
@karthiknadig karthiknadig added this to the June 2022 milestone Jun 14, 2022
@karthiknadig karthiknadig self-assigned this Jun 14, 2022
@rzhao271 rzhao271 added verification-needed Verification of issue is requested verification-steps-needed Steps to verify are needed for verification labels Jun 28, 2022
@rzhao271
Copy link

I see some requirements above.
What are some verification steps for this issue? In particular, are the client/server-side changes verifiable, or only the new setting?

@karthiknadig
Copy link
Member Author

@rzhao271 Sorry. This was just a spike to see the various option. Nothing to verify here.

@karthiknadig karthiknadig added verified Verification succeeded and removed verification-steps-needed Steps to verify are needed for verification verification-needed Verification of issue is requested labels Jun 28, 2022
@rzhao271 rzhao271 added the verification-needed Verification of issue is requested label Jun 28, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 5, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
feature-request Request for new features or functionality needs proposal Need to make some design decisions verification-needed Verification of issue is requested verified Verification succeeded
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants