Feature/lsp copilot

[kassick]

This PR provides lsp-copilot, a client for the Copilot Node Server.

[kassick]

@kiennq here's the lsp-copilot client.

I've included in the PR a change that i've submitted previously that improves an issue that happens with ruff (probably with others as well) -- lsp-mode broadcasts executeCommands to all registered servers. Ruff does not like that and returns an error instead of silently ignoring the command. The result is that sometimes, after accepting an inline completion, the user sees an error message.

The first commit in the PR fixes that.

Let me know if you prefer to go another way with this, or keep this change outside of this PR and iterate over #4494

[kassick]

(CI is failing because the compiler is not understanding the -let bindings unpacking the newly defined interfaces... I'm not sure why, I'll take a look as soon as I've got some time, but if you see something obvious, please let me know!)

[kassick]

Regarding documentation: I'm not sure how to place the copilot in the language list, and even if that's where it should live. I've placed it in the Language section for lack of a better, obvious place.

[kiennq]

The first commit in the PR fixes that.

Let me know if you prefer to go another way with this, or keep this change outside of this PR and iterate over #4494

I would prefer to separate them.

[kassick]

@kiennq I've fixed the issues you've pointed out, let me know if you think this is good to go or if it needs more work.

[kiennq]

@kiennq I've fixed the issues you've pointed out, let me know if you think this is good to go or if it needs more work.

LGTM.
I wonder why you have to create two lsp clients? Shouldn't the second one (the one uses lsp-package-path) covers both of them? If there's system wide copilot lsp executable it will use it (the :system key), else it will use the :npm key that lsp-mode can install.

[kassick]

I wonder why you have to create two lsp clients? Shouldn't the second one (the one uses lsp-package-path) covers both of them? If there's system wide copilot lsp executable it will use it (the :system key), else it will use the :npm key that lsp-mode can install.

You're right, it's no longer needed!

The second client should have been explicitly marked with :remote t. When I coded the first version of the client, there was no bin/copilot-node-server in the installation path, so (for the local client) I had to find language-server.js and execute it in node explicitly. That approach would not fly in remote, so I had to assume that the target environment would have a server command somewhere in the PATH.

But I've just checked the current version of the copilot-node-server and it contains bin/copilot-node-server. Now with lsp-package-path and this executable script, we no longer need to worry.

Thanks for pointing that out!

ACTUALLY: The executable script is there, but then it complains that it can't find the tokenizer ... calling node explicitly probably sets the CWD to the dirname of the script, then it can find the payload correctly...

I'll have to ammend the last commit to work around that, maybe keeping the same strategy as was present in c529d46

[kiennq]

I've tried your last commit, the (lsp-package-path 'copilot-ls) works fine with the latest copilot-node-server.
There's an issue with plist that the :inlineCompletionProvider is mistakenly treated as nil even though it's null.
Here's my fix kiennq@ffe4564

[kassick]

I've tried your last commit, the (lsp-package-path 'copilot-ls) works fine with the latest copilot-node-server. There's an issue with plist that the :inlineCompletionProvider is mistakenly treated as nil even though it's null. Here's my fix kiennq@ffe4564

Weird -- I've tested with your fork and copilot did not complain about not finding the tokenizer model ... Let's hope it does not happen again ;)

[kassick]

About the changes in your fork -- I've left a couple of comments there.

Other than that, how do you want to proceed? Should I merge your changes here or do you prefer to merge them later?

[kiennq]

Other than that, how do you want to proceed? Should I merge your changes here or do you prefer to merge them later?

Yes, please take my commit and make changes as you see fit.

[kassick]

Done @kiennq !