Fix analyzer not being called when getHighlightParsingError is off

[shabbyrobe]

My apologies, looks like I let a regression slip through. I inadvertently allowed the call to the analyzer to be gated behind the getHighlightParsingError function, so if it was off, document trees were never being analysed and cached, breaking lots of things.

It's a bit hard to write a test for at the moment, given config is global. @skovhus, are you comfortable with me replacing accesses to the global config functions with an interface type passed in as a dependency to BashServer? This will make it trivial to inject different values in a test case. Is there a better way to do this?

There was also an issue where TypeScript seems to not notice that undefined can come out of uriToTreeSitterTrees, and we were trying to access rootNodes against a document even if it wasn't found.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #396 (14b2528) into master (95dabb4) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #396   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.96%   73.96%           
=======================================
  Files          19       19           
  Lines         653      653           
  Branches      112      112           
=======================================
  Hits          483      483           
  Misses        144      144           
  Partials       26       26           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
server/src/analyser.ts	83.23% <0.00%> (ø)
server/src/server.ts	57.44% <0.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 213a517...14b2528. Read the comment docs.

[skovhus]

Thanks for the quick fix! 👏 It would be great to refactor this to enable testing. I have no strong opinions on the best option here.

[skovhus]

What I suggest is that we reconsider if we should just get rid of the config option. This really is a workaround as the tree sitter grammar isn’t complete. Any downsides to removing it? A user will not get feedback on why some LSP features doesn’t work. 🤔

To test the behaviour we should be able to mock the analyzer and lint function.

[shabbyrobe]

What I suggest is that we reconsider if we should just get rid of the config option.

I have been keeping it turned off actually, it wasn't typically telling me anything shellcheck wasn't doing a better job of telling me. Maybe I need to spend a bit more time with it turned on to see if I really feel this way.

[shabbyrobe]

Thanks for the quick fix! 👏 It would be great to refactor this to enable testing. I have no strong opinions on the best option here.

No worries! My own fault, glad I ran into it before it inconvenienced lots of folks. As to the config thing, I've got an idea, is it OK if I submit a draft PR?

[skovhus]

I've got an idea, is it OK if I submit a draft PR?

anytime!