usaxena95 added a comment. I am not sure adding client capability is useful here. I have not used the client capability for selectionRange anywhere and I think we can remove it. WDYT ?
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:1131 + Callback<std::vector<SelectionRange>> Reply) { + if (Params.positions.size() != 1) { + elog("{0} positions provided to SelectionRange. Supports exactly one " ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > hokein wrote: > > maybe add an `assert(!Params.positions.empty())`. I think we should not run > > into this case. > But `Params` comes to clangd over LSP, right? > That means `assert` can fire in case of bad inputs over LSP to clangd. > Bad inputs over LSP should never crash clangd. Yes this comes from the client and can be a bad input. We should just return error and not crash in such case. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Protocol.h:1241 +llvm::json::Value toJSON(const SelectionRange &); +llvm::raw_ostream &operator<<(llvm::raw_ostream &, const SelectionRange &); + ---------------- hokein wrote: > does this operator get used in this patch? No. Removed it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67720/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67720 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits