I have created a Visual Studio extension that provider syntax highlighting by implementing IClassifierProvider. I would like to add additional features such as support for the standard Edit.CommentSelection and Edit.FormatDocument commands, but I have no idea how to do that. All the documentation I can find is about adding new commands, but the commands I want to handle already exist.
How can I handle these commands?
I considering the specific Comment Selection and Uncomment Selection commands you refer to as special cases, because I'm working on a Commenter Service specifically intended to support these two actions. The service is being developed on GitHub and will be released via NuGet when it is ready. I'll start with a description of this service, and follow with some general information about implementing support for specific commands, including the Format Document command.
I would like to release the library and its dependencies this week, but the restriction that the Commenter Interfaces assembly be an immutable assembly demands more testing than is generally given to a library prior to its initial release. Fortunately the only thing in this particular assembly is two interfaces is the Tvl.VisualStudio.Text.Commenter.Interfaces namespace.
Using the Commenter Service
Source: Commenter Service (Tunnel Vision Labs' Base Extensions Library for Visual Studio)
This services allows extension developers to easily support the Comment and Uncomment commands for new languages in Visual Studio.
Providing a Standard Commenter
The easiest way to provide commenting features is to use the standard Commenter implementation of the ICommenter interface. The following steps show how to create an instance of Commenter and provide it to the Commenter Service by exporting an instance of ICommenterProvider.
Create a new class derived from ICommenterProvider. This class is exported using the MEF ExportAttribute for one or more specific content types using the ContentTypeAttribute. The commenter in the example supports C++-style line and block comments, for the SimpleC content type.
[Export(typeof(ICommenterProvider))]
[ContentType("SimpleC")]
public sealed class SimpleCCommenterProvider : ICommenterProvider
{
public ICommenter GetCommenter(ITextView textView)
{
// TODO: provide a commenter
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
Define the comment format(s) the commenter will support.
private static readonly LineCommentFormat LineCommentFormat =
new LineCommentFormat("//");
private static readonly BlockCommentFormat BlockCommentFormat =
new BlockCommentFormat("/*", "*/");
Implement the GetCommenter(ITextView) method by returning an instance of Commenter. The ITextUndoHistoryRegistry service is imported in order for Commenter to correctly support the Undo and Redo commands. The following code is the complete implementation of ICommenterProvider required to support the Comment and Uncomment commands for a simple language.
[Export(typeof(ICommenterProvider))]
[ContentType("SimpleC")]
public sealed class SimpleCCommenterProvider : ICommenterProvider
{
private static readonly LineCommentFormat LineCommentFormat =
new LineCommentFormat("//");
private static readonly BlockCommentFormat BlockCommentFormat =
new BlockCommentFormat("/*", "*/");
[Import]
private ITextUndoHistoryRegistry TextUndoHistoryRegistry
{
get;
set;
}
public ICommenter GetCommenter(ITextView textView)
{
Func<Commenter> factory =
() => new Commenter(textView, TextUndoHistoryRegistry, LineCommentFormat, BlockCommentFormat);
return textView.Properties.GetOrCreateSingletonProperty<Commenter>(factory);
}
}
Command Handling in Visual Studio
The following are general steps for handling commands in Visual Studio. Keep in mind that the implementation details are quite complicated; I've created some abstract base classes to simplify specific implementations. After this overview, I will point to both those and a concrete example of their use for you to reference.
Create a class which implements IOleCommandTarget. The QueryStatus method should check for the specific commands handled by your command target and return the appropriate status flags. The Exec method should be implemented to execute the commands.
Register the command target with a specific text view by calling IVsTextView.AddCommandFilter. If you are working with an MEF-based extension, you can obtain the IVsTextView by either exporting an instance of IVsTextViewCreationListener, or by importing the IVsEditorAdaptersFactoryService component and using the GetViewAdapter method to obtain an IVsTextView from an instance of ITextView.
Here are some specific implementations of the interfaces described here:
CommandFilter: This class implements the basic requirements for IOleCommandTarget
TextViewCommandFilter: This class implements additional functionality to simplify the attachment of a command filter to a text view
CommenterFilter: This class is a concrete implementation of a command filter used by the Commenter Service implementation to handle the Comment Selection and Uncomment Selection commands
Related
I have a servicereference with a method I need to use in a test.
The servicereference class is defined as:
public class MyServiceReference : Clientbase<IMyServiceReference>, IMyServiceReference
{
public MyServiceReference()
{
}
..... methods is then defined
}
From my testmethod I have tried both
private MyServiceReference myServiceReferenceFake = A.Fake<MyServiceReference>();
// And
private MyServiceReference myServiceReference = new MyServiceReference();
For both of these is crashes in the constructor with the message:
System.InvalidOperationException: Could not find default endpoint element that references contract.
All I need is to have a callto definition from a method in that class.
How can this be solved?
I've no experience with Clientbase, which I assume to be a System.ServiceModel.ClientBase<TChannel>,but I can make some general comments.
Since you tried first to fake a MyServiceReference, I'll assume that you're not testing that class, and you want to use it as a collaborator for the system under test. In that case, your best bet is to try faking IMyServiceReference. interfaces are very easy to fake, since they don't bring along any behaviour or baggage like faking a class does.
If you feel you really need to fake a MyServiceReference, then we have to contend with the fact that FakeItEasy will eventually call MyServiceReference(), which will call ClientBase<IMyServiceReference>(), whose documentation says
Initializes a new instance of the ClientBase<TChannel> class using the default target endpoint from the application configuration file.
Based on the error you reported, I assume that the application configuration file is not found or does not include the configuration required to create a MyServiceReference. The fact that you get the same error when you just try to instantiate a MyServiceReference directly strengthens my belief.
So I think your paths forward are either to try faking IMyServiceReference or to provide the configuration that ClientBase<IMyServiceReference> needs.
This question relates to ReSharper. If I have an interface that looks like this:
public interface IOrder {
Task SetDeleted(Guid id);
}
and my class inherits from that interface, I would expect ReSharper to generate the following code, when selecting the "Implement missing members":
public class OrderService {
public async Task SetDeleted(Guid id) {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
However, it completely ignores the async part of the method, so I have to type that manually every single time. This was fixed in 2016.3 of ReSharper, as described here (at the bottom).
However, it does not work for the CTRL + . keybinding (or whatever it is), that looks like this:
Is it possible to somehow change, how this behavior works within ReSharper? I want all generated Task methods to be async automatically. There is no option within ReSharper's "Members Generation" that enables me to do this.
In case class has only one missing member ReSharper doesn't show dialog therefore you can't tweak generation options. But you can add one more member to your interface and invoke generation action, this time ReSharper would show the dialog where you can set option "Make task-returning methods 'async'". This generation option is persistent i.e. it's last value will be stored in ReSharper settings and used by default.
I'm trying to make a reshaprer plugin to add one (or more) configurations, besides executable, static method, project, at resharper's build/run window.
Any guidelines where to start? Or how to access build's context and configure?
Currently examining the JetBrains.IDE.RunConfig, SolutionBuilders etc but one help would be appreciated.
Should this plugin be a SolutionComponent or a SolutionInstanceComponent?
Resharper's sdk help lucks documentation on build/run component.
Thank in advance!
You can extend the available run configuration types by implementing IRunConfig and IRunConfigProvider.
The IRunConfigProvider class needs to be marked as [ShellComponent], and can derive from the RunConfigProviderBase abstract base class. You get to specify a name, e.g. "Executable", a type identifier, e.g. "exe" and an icon ID. There's also the CreateNew method, which will create a new instance of your IRunConfig class, which will be mostly unconfigured, at this point.
The IRunConfig interface doesn't need to marked as a component, and should also derive from RunConfigBase - take a look at RunConfigExe in dotPeek to see an example of how to implement. You should override Execute in order to actually run whatever it is you need to run. You can use the RunConfigContext class passed in to actually execute a process from a ProcessStartInfo, or an IProject - this will execute it either by running the process, debugging it, or something else, such as code coverage or profiling.
For an .exe, this is as simple as:
public override void Execute(RunConfigContext context)
{
context.ExecutionProvider.Execute(GetStartInfo(context), context, this);
}
But for a more complicated example, look at RunConfigMethod.Execute, which uses its own standalone launcher executable, and passes in command line parameters to load the correct assembly and execute the given static method.
Settings are implemented with ReadSpecific/SaveSpecific, and you can provide an editor view model with CreateEditor. You'll need a settings class, something like:
[SettingsKey(typeof (ConfigSettings), ".exe config")]
public class ExeSettings
{
[SettingsEntry(null, "Path to .exe")] public string Executable;
[SettingsEntry(null, "Working directory")] public string WorkingDirectory;
[SettingsEntry(null, "Command line arguments")] public string Arguments;
}
The view for the editor is provided by a WPF control that is displayed in a dialog that ReSharper controls. The view needs to be decorated with the [View] attribute and must implement IView<T> where T is the concrete class returned from CreateEditor. This is how ReSharper will locate the view for the view model returned by CreateEditor. Again, take a look at RunConfigMethodView in dotPeek for some more idea of what's going on (and if you look in the resources, you'll be able to see the XAML itself).
As I exposed here, I would like to be able to query freely on the index without Orchard building the query for me.
I built a module, and inserted a copy of the SearchController, adding a new route...
To override default Orchard behavior concerning the query, I had to create new implementations of : ISearchService, IIndexManager, ISearchBuilder, IIndexProvider.
There are minor modifications from their default implementations, but they are needed.
That works as expected, but it currently override the default search too.
This is because I used the same interfaces and autofac takes my implementations.
I would like to be able to leave the default implementation untouched (at url /Search), and add my implementation at url (/LuceneSearch for example)
I suppose I must tell Autofac to use my implementations only for my controller by creating a class that inherits the autofac Module class.
Here is my problem : I don't know how to tell Autofac to use by default the Orchard Implementation, and just for my controller, use my implementation....
Another possibility is to create new interfaces, but it seems to me not really beautiful...
Can someone help me ? :)
Metadata feature will help you here. Also you have to register your implementations with PreserveExistingDefaults() modifier to preserve orchard's implementations by default.
Update:
Orchard registers all dependencies from Autofac's IModule implementation and from Orchard's IDependency one. All magic happen in Orchard's ShellContainerFactory class. Since ISearchService inherits from IDependency your implementation is registered by Orchard which overwrites default one.
You have two ways here:
Introduce your own empty interface IMySearchService which inherits from ISearchService. Implement and use it in your code where you need your implementation. Orchard will handle all registrations for your.
Orchard registers all IDependency implementations with "Feature" Metadata in ShellContainerFactory.RegisterType method. You can read this metadata in your code and choose your implementation (see link to wiki above). Feature class contains all necessary information about your module.
Hope this will help you.
A simpler method without dabbling with the intricacies of Autofac would be to use an IEnumerable<IInterface> variable in your controller/driver at url "/LuceneSearch" to hold all implementations of IInterface and choose which to consume.
For example, in order to consume your implementation of IIndexManager, you would put the following in your controller or driver
public class MyCustomPartDriver : ContentPartDriver<MyCustomPart> {
private readonly IEnumerable<IIndexManager> _indexManagers;
public MyCustomPartDriver(IEnumerable<IIndexManager> indexManagers) {
_indexManagers = indexManager;
}
protected override DriverResult Display(MyCustomPart part, string displayType, dynamic shapeHelper) {
//Use your implementation of IIndexManager
var indexManager = _indexManagers.First(im => im is MyCustomIndexManager);
//Get the ISearchBuilder from your implementation of IIndexManager
var searchBuilder = indexManager.HasIndexProvider() ? indexManager.GetSearchIndexProvider().CreateSearchBuilder("Search") : new NullSearchBuilder();
//perform search on the indexing engine
var contentItemIds = searchBuilder.
.WithField("type", "MyCustomType").Mandatory().ExactMatch()
.Parse("mycustompart-keyword", part.Keyword).Mandatory()
.Search()
.Select(h => h.ContentItemId)
.ToList();
//do stuff with the results returned and return a DriverResult using the ContentShape method. Well, you know the drill.
}
}
If you don't want to have autofac resolve your own implementation by default, then don't implement the public interface.
I am using the very excellent servicestack libaries and trying to generate a ASP.NET web-service reference (old style not WCF) from within VS2010 across my servicestack WSDL - Soap11. To nicely wrap the service WSDL.
The DTO's are in a seperate assembly/namespace (My.WS.DTO) from the AppHost/services and are following the request/response naming convention.. when I try to generate the reference through visual studio I get the following error in VS.
Custom tool error: Unable to import WebService/Schema. Unable to import binding 'BasicHttpBinding_ISyncReply' from namespace 'http://schemas.servicestack.net/types'. Unable to import operation 'GetMyDetails'. The element 'http://schemas.servicestack.net/types:GetMyDetails' is missing.
NOTE: GetMyDetails is just the first service that appears in the list - so I dont believe this is the problem.
I have tried adding the assembly namespace in the AppHost file using
EndpointHostConfig.Instance.WsdlServiceNamespace = "My.WS.DTO"; and this just causes the same generation error (as above) but with 'My.WS.DTO' instead of 'http://schemas.servicestack.net/types'.
I assume it is perhaps some sort of referencing problem but any guidance as to what I might be doing wrong would be great.
cheers
I don't know if this is still an issue for you but I had a similar problem and found that I had not decorated one of my DTOs with [DataContract] and [DataMember] attributes, as described on the SOAP Support wiki page. Once you have added these to your DTO it will be declared in the type section of the WSDL.
Have a look at using [DataContract (Namespace = "YOUR NAMESPACE")] on top of your DTO's. This is how my objects are referenced.
[DataContract(Namespace = "My.WS.DTO")]
public class Account{
}
I also use this in my service model. [System.ServiceModel.ServiceContract()] and [System.ServiceModel.OperationContract()]
[System.ServiceModel.ServiceContract()]
public class SendGetAccountResponseService : IService<SendGetAccountNotification>
{
#region IService implementation
[System.ServiceModel.OperationContract()]
public object Execute (SendGetAccountNotification request)
{
Console.WriteLine ("Reached");
return null;
}
#endregion
}
Hope this helps / solves your problem.
I know this is an old question, but I had to add SOAP support for a 3rd party that refused to support REST very recently to my ServiceStack implementation so it could still be relevant to other people still having this issue.
I had the same issue you were having:
Unable to import binding 'BasicHttpBinding_ISyncReply'...
And like mickfold previously answered I needed to add [DataContract] and [DataMember] to my class definitions and their properties.
But I also had to add the following to my AssemblyInfo.cs file before the error went away for me:
[assembly: ContractNamespace("http://schemas.servicestack.net/types", ClrNamespace = "My Type Namespace")]
I assume that you will need one of these lines for every single namespace where you have a type declared, which based upon the original question above would be My.WS.DTO.