[lldb] Cut off unused suffix in CompletionRequest::GetRawLine

The GetRawLine currently returns the full command line used
to create the CompletionRequest. So for example for "foo b[tab] --arg"
it wo

[lldb] Cut off unused suffix in CompletionRequest::GetRawLine

The GetRawLine currently returns the full command line used
to create the CompletionRequest. So for example for "foo b[tab] --arg"
it would return the whole string instead of "foo b". Usually
completion code makes the wrong assumption that the cursor is at
the end of the line and handing out the complete line will cause
that people implement completions that also make this assumption.

This patch makes GetRawLine() return only the string until the
cursor and hides the suffix (so that the cursor is always at the
end of this string) and adds another function GetRawLineWithUnusedSuffix
that is specifically the line with the suffix that isn't used by
the CompletionRequest for argument parsing etc.

There is only one user of this new function that actually needs the
suffix and that is the expression command which needs the suffix to
detect if it is in the raw or argument part of the command (by looking
at the "--" separator).

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Fix all formatting errors in .cpp file headers

Summary:
A *.cpp file header in LLDB (and in LLDB) should like this:
```
//===-- TestUtilities.cpp ----------------------------------------

[lldb][NFC] Fix all formatting errors in .cpp file headers

Summary:
A *.cpp file header in LLDB (and in LLDB) should like this:
```
//===-- TestUtilities.cpp -------------------------------------------------===//
```
However in LLDB most of our source files have arbitrary changes to this format and
these changes are spreading through LLDB as folks usually just use the existing
source files as templates for their new files (most notably the unnecessary
editor language indicator `-*- C++ -*-` is spreading and in every review
someone is pointing out that this is wrong, resulting in people pointing out that this
is done in the same way in other files).

This patch removes most of these inconsistencies including the editor language indicators,
all the different missing/additional '-' characters, files that center the file name, missing
trailing `===//` (mostly caused by clang-format breaking the line).

Reviewers: aprantl, espindola, jfb, shafik, JDevlieghere

Reviewed By: JDevlieghere

Subscribers: dexonsmith, wuzish, emaste, sdardis, nemanjai, kbarton, MaskRay, atanasyan, arphaman, jfb, abidh, jsji, JDevlieghere, usaxena95, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73258

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Add CompletionRequest::AppendEmptyArgument

This is the only legitimate use we currently have for modifying
a CompletionRequest. Add a utility function for this purpose
and remove the rem

[lldb][NFC] Add CompletionRequest::AppendEmptyArgument

This is the only legitimate use we currently have for modifying
a CompletionRequest. Add a utility function for this purpose
and remove the remaining setters which go against the idea of
having an immutable CompletionRequest.

llvm-svn: 372858

show more ...

[lldb] Remove redundant argument lists in CompletionRequest

We currently have two lists in the CompletionRequest that we
inherited from the old API: The complete list of arguments ignoring
where the

[lldb] Remove redundant argument lists in CompletionRequest

We currently have two lists in the CompletionRequest that we
inherited from the old API: The complete list of arguments ignoring
where the user requested completion and the list of arguments that
stops at the cursor. Having two lists of arguments is confusing
and can lead to subtle errors, so let's remove the complete list
until we actually need it.

llvm-svn: 372692

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Make cursor char position unsigned in CompletionRequest

This was only an 'int' because to fit into the old API which is
gone by now.

llvm-svn: 372568

[lldb] Make cursor index in CompletionRequest unsigned

The fact that index==-1 means "no arguments" is not obvious and only
used in one place from what I can tell. Also fixes several warnings
about

[lldb] Make cursor index in CompletionRequest unsigned

The fact that index==-1 means "no arguments" is not obvious and only
used in one place from what I can tell. Also fixes several warnings
about using the cursor index as if it was a size_t when comparing.

Not fully NFC as we now also correctly update the partial argument list
when injecting the fake empty argument in the CompletionRequest
constructor.

llvm-svn: 372566

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Remove argument prefix checking boilerplate when adding completions

llvm-svn: 372561

[lldb] Reduce some dangerous boilerplate with CompletionRequest::ShiftArguments

We should in general not allow external code to fiddle with the internals of
CompletionRequest, but until this is gone

[lldb] Reduce some dangerous boilerplate with CompletionRequest::ShiftArguments

We should in general not allow external code to fiddle with the internals of
CompletionRequest, but until this is gone let's at least provide a utility
function that makes this less dangerous.

This also now correct updates the partially parsed argument list,
but it doesn't seem to be used by anything that is behind one of
the current shift/SetCursorIndex calls, so this doesn't seeem to
fix any currently used completion.

llvm-svn: 372556

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Remove WordComplete mode, make result array indexed from 0 and remove any undocumented/redundant return values

Summary:
We still have some leftovers of the old completion API in the inte

[lldb][NFC] Remove WordComplete mode, make result array indexed from 0 and remove any undocumented/redundant return values

Summary:
We still have some leftovers of the old completion API in the internals of
LLDB that haven't been replaced by the new CompletionRequest. These leftovers
are:

* The return values (int/size_t) in all completion functions.
* Our result array that starts indexing at 1.
* `WordComplete` mode.

I didn't replace them back then because it's tricky to figure out what exactly they
are used for and the completion code is relatively untested. I finally got around
to writing more tests for the API and understanding the semantics, so I think it's
a good time to get rid of them.

A few words why those things should be removed/replaced:

* The return values are really cryptic, partly redundant and rarely documented.
They are also completely ignored by Xcode, so whatever information they contain will end up
breaking Xcode's completion mechanism. They are also partly impossible to even implement
as we assign negative values special meaning and our completion API sometimes returns size_t.

Completion functions are supposed to return -2 to rewrite the current line. We seem to use this
in some untested code path to expand the history repeat character to the full command, but
I haven't figured out why that doesn't work at the moment.
Completion functions return -1 to 'insert the completion character', but that isn't implemented
(even though we seem to activate this feature in LLDB sometimes).
All positive values have to match the number of results. This is obviously just redundant information
as the user can just look at the result list to get that information (which is what Xcode does).

* The result array that starts indexing at 1 is obviously unexpected. The first element of the array is
reserved for the common prefix of all completions (e.g. "foobar" and "footar" -> "foo"). The idea is
that we calculate this to make the life of the API caller easier, but obviously forcing people to have
1-based indices is not helpful (or even worse, forces them to manually copy the results to make it
0-based like Xcode has to do).

* The `WordComplete` mode indicates that LLDB should enter a space behind the completion. The
idea is that we let the top-level API know that we just provided a full completion. Interestingly we
`WordComplete` is just a single bool that somehow represents all N completions. And we always
provide full completions in LLDB, so in theory it should always be true.
The only use it currently serves is providing redundant information about whether we have a single
definitive completion or not (which we already know from the number of results we get).

This patch essentially removes `WordComplete` mode and makes the result array indexed from 0.
It also removes all return values from all internal completion functions. The only non-redundant information
they contain is about rewriting the current line (which is broken), so that functionality was moved
to the CompletionRequest API. So you can now do `addCompletion("blub", "description", CompletionMode::RewriteLine)`
to do the same.

For the SB API we emulate the old behaviour by making the array indexed from 1 again with the common
prefix at index 0. I didn't keep the special negative return codes as we either never sent them before (e.g. -2) or we
didn't even implement them in the Editline handler (e.g. -1).

I tried to keep this patch minimal and I'm aware we can probably now even further simplify a bunch of related code,
but I would prefer doing this in follow-up NFC commits

Reviewers: JDevlieghere

Reviewed By: JDevlieghere

Subscribers: arphaman, abidh, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66536

llvm-svn: 369624

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Stop using GetNumberOfMatches in CompletionRequest test

This function is just a wrapper for GetNumberOfResults and will
be removed soon. This patch just changes all calls to GetNumberOfR

[lldb][NFC] Stop using GetNumberOfMatches in CompletionRequest test

This function is just a wrapper for GetNumberOfResults and will
be removed soon. This patch just changes all calls to GetNumberOfResults
where possible (which is currently just the unit test).

llvm-svn: 369267

show more ...

[CompletionRequest] Remove unimplemented members.

Completion requests have two fields that are essentially unimplemented:
`m_match_start_point` and `m_max_return_elements`. This would've been
okay,

[CompletionRequest] Remove unimplemented members.

Completion requests have two fields that are essentially unimplemented:
`m_match_start_point` and `m_max_return_elements`. This would've been
okay, if it wasn't for the fact that this caused a bunch of useless
parameters to be passed around. Occasionally there would be a comment or
assert saying that they are not supported. This patch removes them.

llvm-svn: 367385

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

Add support for descriptions with command completions.

Summary:
This patch adds a framework for adding descriptions to the command completions we provide.
It also adds descriptions for completed top

Add support for descriptions with command completions.

Summary:
This patch adds a framework for adding descriptions to the command completions we provide.
It also adds descriptions for completed top-level commands so that we can test this code.

Completions are in general supposed to be displayed alongside the completion itself. The descriptions
can be used to provide additional information about the completion to the user. Examples for descriptions
are function signatures when completing function calls in the expression command or the binary name
when providing completion for a symbol.

There is still some boilerplate code from the old completion API left in LLDB (mostly because the respective
APIs are reused for non-completion related purposes, so the CompletionRequest doesn't make sense to be
used), so that's why I still had to change some function signatures. Also, as the old API only passes around a
list of matches, and the descriptions are for these functions just another list, I had to add some code that
essentially just ensures that both lists are always the same side (e.g. all the manual calls to
`descriptions->AddString(X)` below a `matches->AddString(Y)` call).

The initial command descriptions that come with this patch are just reusing the existing
short help that is already added in LLDB.

An example completion with descriptions looks like this:
```
(lldb) pl
Available completions:
platform -- Commands to manage and create platforms.
plugin -- Commands for managing LLDB plugins.
```

Reviewers: #lldb, jingham

Reviewed By: #lldb, jingham

Subscribers: jingham, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175

llvm-svn: 342181

show more ...

Narrow the CompletionRequest API to being append-only.

Summary:
We currently allow any completion handler to read and manipulate the list of matches we
calculated so far. This leads to a few problem

Narrow the CompletionRequest API to being append-only.

Summary:
We currently allow any completion handler to read and manipulate the list of matches we
calculated so far. This leads to a few problems:

Firstly, a completion handler's logic can now depend on previously calculated results
by another handlers. No completion handler should have such an implicit dependency,
but the current API makes it likely that this could happen (or already happens). Especially
the fact that some completion handler deleted all previously calculated results can mess
things up right now.

Secondly, all completion handlers have knowledge about our internal data structures with
this API. This makes refactoring this internal data structure much harder than it should be.
Especially planned changes like the support of descriptions for completions are currently
giant patches because we have to refactor every single completion handler.

This patch narrows the contract the CompletionRequest has with the different handlers to:

1. A handler can suggest a completion.
2. A handler can ask how many suggestions we already have.

Point 2 obviously means we still have a dependency left between the different handlers, but
getting rid of this is too large to just append it to this patch.

Otherwise this patch just completely hides the internal StringList to the different handlers.

The CompletionRequest API now also ensures that the list of completions is unique and we
don't suggest the same value multiple times to the user. This property has been so far only
been ensured by the `Option` handler, but is now applied globally. This is part of this patch
as the OptionHandler is no longer able to implement this functionality itself.

Reviewers: jingham, davide, labath

Reviewed By: davide

Subscribers: lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49322

llvm-svn: 338151

show more ...

Replaced more boilerplate code with CompletionRequest (NFC)

Summary:
As suggested in D48796, this patch replaces even more internal calls that were using the old
completion API style with a single C

Replaced more boilerplate code with CompletionRequest (NFC)

Summary:
As suggested in D48796, this patch replaces even more internal calls that were using the old
completion API style with a single CompletionRequest. In some cases we also pass an option
vector/index, but as we don't always have this information, it currently is not part of the
CompletionRequest class.

The constructor of the CompletionRequest is now also more sensible. You only pass the
user input, cursor position and your list of matches to the request and the rest will be
inferred (using the same code we used before to calculate this). You also have to pass these
match window parameters to it, even though they are unused right now.

The patch shouldn't change any behavior.

Reviewers: jingham

Reviewed By: jingham

Subscribers: lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48976

llvm-svn: 337031

show more ...

Refactoring for for the internal command line completion API (NFC)

Summary:
This patch refactors the internal completion API. It now takes (as far as possible) a single
CompletionRequest object inst

Refactoring for for the internal command line completion API (NFC)

Summary:
This patch refactors the internal completion API. It now takes (as far as possible) a single
CompletionRequest object instead o half a dozen in/out/in-out parameters. The CompletionRequest
contains a common superset of the different parameters as far as it makes sense. This includes
the raw command line string and raw cursor position, which should make the `expr` command
possible to implement (at least without hacks that reconstruct the command line from the args).

This patch is not intended to change the observable behavior of lldb in any way. It's also as
minimal as possible and doesn't attempt to fix all the problems the API has.

Some Q&A:

Q: Why is this not fixing all the problems in the completion API?
A: Because is a blocker for the expr command completion which I want to get in ASAP. This is the
smallest patch that unblocks the expr completion patch and which allows trivial refactoring in the future.
The patch also doesn't really change the internal information flow in the API, so that hopefully
saves us from ever having to revert and resubmit this humongous patch.

Q: Can we merge all the copy-pasted code in the completion methods
(like computing the current incomplete arg) into CompletionRequest class?
A: Yes, but it's out of scope for this patch.

Q: Why the `word_complete = request.GetWordComplete(); ... ` pattern?
A: I don't want to add a getter that returns a reference to the internal integer. So we have
to use a temporary variable and the Getter/Setter instead. We don't throw exceptions
from what I can tell, so the behavior doesn't change.

Q: Why are we not owning the list of matches?
A: Because that's how the previous API works. But that should be fixed too (in another patch).

Q: Can we make the constructor simpler and compute some of the values from the plain command?
A: I think this works, but I rather want to have this in a follow up commit. Especially when making nested
request it's a bit awkward that the parsed arguments behave as both input/output (as we should in theory
propagate the changes on the nested request back to the parent request if we don't want to change the
behavior too much).

Q: Can't we pass one const request object and then just return another result object instead of mixing
them together in one in/out parameter?
A: It's hard to get keep the same behavior with that pattern, but I think we can also get a nice API with just
a single request object. If we make all input parameters read-only, we have a clear separation between what
is actually an input and what an output parameter (and hopefully we get rid of the in-out parameters).

Q: Can we throw out the 'match' variables that are not implemented according to the comment?
A: We currently just forward them as in the old code to the different methods, even though I think
they are really not used. We can easily remove and readd them once every single completion method just
takes a CompletionRequest, but for now I prefer NFC behavior from the perspective of the API user.

Reviewers: davide, jingham, labath

Reviewed By: jingham

Subscribers: mgorny, friss, lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48796

llvm-svn: 336146

show more ...