Add support for workspace read requests#1825
Open
msujew wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
|
Azure Pipelines: There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run. |
Author
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree |
msujew
force-pushed
the
workspace-read-feature
branch
from
July 22, 2026 10:10
a97888f to
d0e4f81
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Related to microsoft/language-server-protocol#1264 (does not fully resolve it, since this PR does not include features to write into a file system - only read from it).
Adds support for the server to read files/directories/stat info from the client. Allows servers to "see" any registered remote/virtual file system files/directories via means of the LSP.
As indicated by microsoft/language-server-protocol#1264 (comment), I also thought it'd be best to start with read-only access to the file system. However, the new interfaces/types should be extendable enough to also add write requests if required later on.
Some questions/considerations:
null. Should it return a response error instead?FileSystemClientCapabilities. Does it make sense to expose each individual request type as an opt-in flag? Or is it enough to provide aread?: booleanflag (maybe extend this with awrite?: booleanflag later on)?FileType.unknownvalue results from the fact that vscode offersvscode.FileType.unknownas a possible value to return forFileStat.type. Should this be included in the protocol, or should stats/directory entries with this type simply be omitted?