Skip to content

Conversation

@shawn-hurley
Copy link
Contributor

  • We need to make sure that the compilation unit is consistant with the underlying resource before we look for the location.
  • Changes to the filesystem are reflected correctly in the search match, but are not reflected in the compilation unit, so we need to force it to become consistant.
  • Fixed a bug in a regex replace that caused every char to be changed to "/"
  • Fixed a potential bug, where for a multipattern seach match, we could have overwrites of the specific SymbolProvider.

fixes #122

* We need to make sure that the compilation unit is consistant with the
  underlying resource before we look for the location.
* Changes to the filesystem are reflected correctly in the search match,
  but are not reflected in the compilation unit, so we need to force it
to become consistant.
* Fixed a bug in a regex replace that caused every char to be changed to
  "/"
* Fixed a potential bug, where for a multipattern seach match, we could
  have overwrites of the specific SymbolProvider.

Signed-off-by: Shawn Hurley <[email protected]>

// check if the match was found in the same package as the query was looking for
if (queryQualification != "" && location.getUri().contains(queryQualification.replaceAll(".", "/"))) {
if (queryQualification != "" && location.getUri().contains(queryQualification.replaceAll("\\.", "/"))) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what's with \\.? It isn't a regex, no?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it escapes the . to actually change just the '.' character and not every character. what was happening is that the replaced string was ////////////////

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

holy 💩

Copy link
Contributor

@pranavgaikwad pranavgaikwad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch! LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

No open projects
Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Missing incidents on the file after accepting resolution for one of the incidents

2 participants