There were a few places that options only took place *after* determining
a build system, even though we have multiple that impact the search (eg.
`defaultBuildSystem` and `searchPaths`).
Additionally track project root and configuration paths separately, so
that when searching for implicit workspaces we can make sure to skip
creating duplicates.
(cherry picked from commit 0c896696c9)
If you have a package located at `/pkg` and a symlink at `/symlink` and you open `/symlink` as a workspace, the SwiftPMBuildSystem’s project root would be `/pkg`. This would mean that it also only knew about build settings for files in `/pkg`, not in `/symlink`. Thus, whenever we were opening a file in `/symlink` we would create an implicit workspace to handle it (but which ended up having a project root at `/symlink` again) – or something close to this.
We shouldn’t need to realpath here. If you open `/symlink`, we should view `/symlink` as the project root of your workspace.
(cherry picked from commit 8617b8bbcc)
Currently, when there‘s a syntax error in a package manifest, we don’t get any build settings from it in SourceKit-LSP and thus loose almost all semantic functionality. If we can’t parse the package manifest, fall back to providing build settings by assuming it has the current Swift tools version.
Currently, when there‘s a syntax error in a package manifest, we don’t get any build settings from it in SourceKit-LSP and thus loose almost all semantic functionality. If we can’t parse the package manifest, fall back to providing build settings by assuming it has the current Swift tools version.
Fixes#1704
rdar://136423767
Consider the following scenario: A project has target A containing A.swift an target B containing B.swift. B.swift is a symlink to A.swift. When A.swift is modified, both the dependencies of A and B need to be marked as having an out-of-date preparation status, not just A.
When we have background indexing enabled, SourceKit-LSP manages the dependencies. We should thus allow it to update them, eg. after `Package.resolved` was updated.
Some SwiftPM functions check whether their observability scope has errors. If we use the same observability scope for all SwiftPM operations during SourceKit-LSP’s lifetime, a single SwiftPM error will set the `hasError` bit in that observability scope for the entirety of SourceKit-LSP’s lifetime, impacting all upcoming SwiftPM operations.
Creating a separate child scope for every operation fixes
We made quite a few fixes recently to make sure that path handling works correctly using `URL` on Windows. Use `URL` in most places to have a single type that represents file paths instead of sometimes using `AbsolutePath`.
While doing so, also remove usages of `TSCBasic.FileSystem` an `InMemoryFileSystem`. The pattern of using `InMemoryFileSystem` for tests was never consistently used and it was a little confusing that some types took a `FileSystem` parameter while other always assumed to work on the local file system.
`URL.path` returns forward slashes in the path on Windows (https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-foundation/issues/973) where we expect backslashes. Work around that by defining our own `filePath` property that is backed by `withUnsafeFileSystemRepresentation`, which produces backslashes.
rdar://137963660
When you had a package at `/pkg_real` and a symlink `/pkg` pointing to `/pkg_real`, then opened a workspace at `/pkg`, we wouldn’t get any build settings for any of the files. This was masked in tests because they still called `SwiftPMBuildSystem.targets(for:)`, which handled symlink resolution but wasn’t called in production.
Handle symlink resolution `BuildSystemManager`, remove `SwiftPMBuildSystem.targets(for:)` and its related members/methods, and migrate the tests to go through `BuildSystemManager`, which is what production code does. A nice side effect of this is that the tests will log the requests sent to the build system.
Xcode 16 with Swift 6 has been released, we can drop support for building and testing SourceKit-LSP using a Swift 5.10 toolchain. This allows us to remove a number of workarounds.
`buildTarget/inverseSources` is not required to be implemented by BSP servers and we have almost all information needed for it in `BuildSystemManager`.
This also makes sure that `buildTarget/sources` and `buildTarget/inverseSources` actually match each other. Before this change, we had source files like `Package.swift` for which we returned a target from `buildTarget/inverseSources` but that weren’t part of that target’s sources retrieved using `buildTarget/sources`.
