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

Stop doing action for handles and ignore responses after shutdown #567

Conversation

soulomoon
Copy link
Collaborator

@soulomoon soulomoon force-pushed the stop-doing-action-before-handle-after-shutdown branch from f4cb6df to e63e1e0 Compare April 8, 2024 14:47
@soulomoon soulomoon marked this pull request as draft April 8, 2024 16:14
_ -> False

logger <& LspMessage (show m) `WithSeverity` Debug
when (not shutdown || allowedMethod m) $ maybe (return ()) (\f -> f msg) mAction
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this would be stronger than it needs to be. In particular, it's not a problem if we e.g. update the VFS. It's really only the config callback that's potentially problematic.

It's also not enough, since updating the configuration is complicated. This handles the didChangeConfiguration notification, but not the response to workspace/configuration. So if we wanted to do this, I think we should just stick the check in tryUpdateConfig or something.

And I still think that servers should just make their config callbacks safe :)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@soulomoon soulomoon Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right , it is not enough to stop the callback.
But IMO I do not see any reason to do the action before noti/req even it is safe to do so, since the server is marked as shutdown anyway(Waitting the cleanup and exit notification, and ignoring other notification and request, it seems reasonable to ignore thoese actions bring up by recieving the notification and request after the shutdown).🤔

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@soulomoon soulomoon Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After reading the relevant issues, Is my understanding correct about config update?

There is push model and pull model(new one) in LSP,
The pull model:

  1. didChangeConfiguration sent to server
  2. workspace/configuration sent to client
  3. Response of configuration sent to server, we update the config.

What we are doing here is kind of mixed:

  1. didChangeConfiguration sent to server, we tryChangeConfig.
  2. workspace/configuration sent to client
  3. Response of configuration sent to server, tryChangeConfig again.

logger <& NewConfig newConfigObject `WithSeverity` Debug
cb <- LspT $ asks resOnConfigChange
liftIO $ cb newConfig
shutDown <- isShuttingDown
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@soulomoon soulomoon Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so instead of stop callback to all responses after we shutdown, we are stopping the config update callback here?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You convinced me, let's not do this and instead skip both responses and actions like you suggest.

@soulomoon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think it is pretty counter intuitive that we are reponding with a invalid request but still do the actions.

@michaelpj
Copy link
Collaborator

I think it is pretty counter intuitive that we are reponding with a invalid request but still do the actions.

That's fair. What I am planning to do at some point is to entirely move all this stuff to be just default handlers for these methods. Then they would be treated uniformly.

I guess also that not accepting responses is pretty reasonable. We might well expect that clients won't send responses if they've send shutdown, servers should probably just be robust to that. But we should document it in the note.

@soulomoon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

soulomoon commented Apr 10, 2024

What I am planning to do at some point is to entirely move all this stuff to be just default handlers for these methods. Then they would be treated uniformly.

Agree, this should make things better.

@michaelpj michaelpj marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2024 10:08
@michaelpj
Copy link
Collaborator

Need to fix formatting

@soulomoon soulomoon changed the title Stop doing action before handle after shutdown Stop doing action for handles and ignore responses after shutdown Apr 10, 2024
@soulomoon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Need to fix formatting

fixed now

Copy link
Collaborator

@michaelpj michaelpj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great, thanks for making this better!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants