Suggesting configuration parameters in section "Nette"

[brabijan]

It would be nice, if plugin can suggest me configuration parameters in Nette section (session, database, latte, etc...)

[juzna]

It is already there, perhaps new keywords shall be added as well? Or I guess we shall add these into a separate nette plugin, because this is not raw neon

[juzna]

Similar to #9

I guess we shall have some external definition of available keywords, in several contexts. Is there something like Neon Schema? (http://json-schema.org/examples.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_(W3C))

[juzna]

@hosiplan, you've got many configurator extensions which would be nice to have autocompletion as well. Any ideas how to list available keywords for each extension?

[fprochazka]

I would postpone this. Soon there will be validator for compiler parameters in @nette and than it would be much easier to get standardtized structure to validate over and autocomplete. cc @dg

[hrach]

@hosiplan 👍

[juzna]

Actually I don't want to postpone this, because I love autocompletion (im too laz to typ ful words)

@dg have you got something already? Can we discuss it to check whether it would be easy to add IDE support for it?

[fprochazka]

@juzna you may add autocompletion for nette section (it wouldn't change that much), but general support would be harder and should wait for the validators.

[dg]

There is a difference between DI service schema and config.neon schema. Because there are 4 steps of processing:

• convert NEON to intermediate format (because we have support for different formats)
• merge multiple files
• expand parameters (in 2.1, so it is impossible to have validation scheme in 2.0)
• validating (in 2.1)

So I have plan to add some validation scheme, but it will be validator for partially processed file, not for source neon file.

[fprochazka]

@dg the point here is to have autocompletion based on the defined validation schema, not validation itself (well, maybe) :)

[dg]

I understand, I'm just saying that there will be no validation schema for neon in Nette.

[hrach]

Imo we should split neon & neon config support. Neon config should have another extension. Neon support should be clear with php class autocompletion etc. Neon config should have some validation, autocompletion, section hinting, etc.

[juzna]

Yep we may split the plugin eventually, but not now. It's not about having hundreds of plugins, but about getting some work done ;)

I'll try to prepare some kind of very simple neon schema which will be used for autocompletion and validation in IDE.

[hrach]

well, I wasn't talking about splitting the plugin, but splitting the available features for autocompletion. The first step is the detection, what do you want to validate/autocomplete.
possibilites:

• by extension - sth like *.neon and *.neonc
• by heuristic, comment, annotation?

[dg]

By config*.neon ?

[hrach]

@dg: yes, this was meant as heuristic, also sth like config/*.neon :)

[dg]

(BTW, we need to version Neon syntax, because it is developed)

[juzna]

What about this kind of annotations?

/** Edit: DEPRECATED: do not read this anymore!!! Proceed to the other example. */
class NetteExtension extends Nette\Config\CompilerExtension
{
    /** @configDefaults("nette") */
    public $defaults = array(
        'session' => array(
            'debugger' => FALSE,
            'iAmUsingBadHost' => NULL,
            'autoStart' => 'smart',  // true|false|smart
            'expiration' => NULL,
        ),
    );

    /** @configDefaults("nette.database.*") */
    public $databaseDefaults = array(
        'dsn' => NULL,
        'user' => NULL,
        'password' => NULL,
        'options' => NULL,
        'debugger' => TRUE,
        'explain' => TRUE,
        'reflection' => 'Nette\Database\Reflection\DiscoveredReflection',
    );

Or an unobstrusive way, similar to Factory Methods which are built in PhpStorm:

<?php
// .phpstorm.meta.php
namespace NEON_META {                                                 // we want to avoid the pollution
  $CONFIG_KEYS = [
    'dibi' => [ 'host' => '', 'dbname' => '', 'user' => '', 'password' => '' ],  // unobstrusive static definition

    'nette' => \Nette\Config\Extensions\NetteExtension::$defaults,    // no problem the property is actually not static
  ];

[juzna]

I've got proof of concept of the unobtrusive way ready (8875871) and it's pretty pleasant to use. I think it's better than annotations (the first way).

[fprochazka]

Great, now the application can generate it using some kind of extension :)

[juzna]

I created a sample metadata file from which I believe it would be possible to provide very good autocompletion. Please

• have a look at it
• try to add more metadata for your compiler extensions, so that we can see whether it's understandable
• provide any comments

Thanks!