Skip to content

Conversation

@caarlos0
Copy link
Member

The library we were using does not provide a good way to handle exceptions et al.

Even if it did, we probably need to handle this in a case-by-case basis, as the correct thing to do for each property is different.

This removes the library, introducing a manual merge process, and starts adding tests to verify it all.

Ideally, we should also document what happens for each option.

closes #932
closes #241

The library we were using does not provide a good way to handle
exceptions et al.

Even if it did, we probably need to handle this in a case-by-case basis,
as the correct thing to do for each property is different.

This removes the library, introducing a manual merge process, and starts
adding tests to verify it all.

Ideally, we should also document what happens for each option.

closes #932
closes #241

Signed-off-by: Carlos Alexandro Becker <caarlos0@users.noreply.github.com>
@caarlos0 caarlos0 self-assigned this Oct 22, 2025
Signed-off-by: Carlos Alexandro Becker <caarlos0@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Alexandro Becker <caarlos0@users.noreply.github.com>
@caarlos0 caarlos0 marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2025 13:53
@caarlos0 caarlos0 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 23, 2025 13:53
@caarlos0 caarlos0 requested review from kujtimiihoxha and meowgorithm and removed request for a team October 23, 2025 13:53
Copy link
Member

@raphamorim raphamorim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

glad u added tests

Signed-off-by: Carlos Alexandro Becker <caarlos0@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Carlos Alexandro Becker <caarlos0@users.noreply.github.com>
@kujtimiihoxha
Copy link
Member

@caarlos0 can we get this rebased

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.

LSP arguments duplicated Local providers in .crush.json are overridden by fur providers if named the same

5 participants