Get priority from config

[elliotaplant]

Requirements

• Filling out the template is required. Any pull request that does not include enough information to be reviewed in a timely manner may be closed at the maintainers' discretion.
• All new code requires tests to ensure against regressions

Description of the Change

This change allows users to configure the inclusionPriority and suggestionPriority of their snippets in the autocomplete menu

Alternate Designs

An alternative considered was to increase the default priorities of this package, but that just contributes to a priority arms race.

Benefits

The benefit of this package is that users will be able to control the priority of their snippets without changing the behavior for current users.

Possible Drawbacks

One possible drawback is that users may configure their priorities incorrectly and not know why their snippets are prioritized too hight or too low.

Applicable Issues

atom/autocomplete-plus#946
atom/snippets#265
#86
#94

[samartioli]

awesome!

[rsese]

Thanks @elliotaplant!

Can you add tests? As mentioned in the Requirements section, we require tests to guard against regressions so tests are necessary before the team can review.

[elliotaplant]

Of course. I'll add them this week

[elliotaplant]

@rsese - I added a couple tests for the default case and the change behavior. Let me know if those work for you!

[rsese]

Thank you! Someone from the team will take a look as soon as they can.

[elliotaplant]

No rush @rsese, but has anyone had a chance to take a peek at this?

[Aerijo]

Not sure if I count as team, but see the requested changes.

@elliotaplant Have you also confirmed this works in practice? I've had trouble before with autocomplete-plus not picking up on the provider changing settings.

Edit: It looks like it should work though, because it's grabbing the property from the provider object each time. I was having trouble with blacklisting selectors which are just copied in the beginning.

[elliotaplant]

Thanks for the suggestions @Aerijo! I'll make the changes when I get a chance.

[rsese]

Not sure if I count as team, but see the requested changes.

You definitely count as part of the team and I know your reviews are appreciated 😄

As far as reviewing to the point of merging or not however, one of the GitHub maintainers would do that - so to circle back to your question about timing @elliotaplant, with the team's finite resources and current workload, we can't promise a particular timeframe when this would be reviewed at the moment.

But it's definitely on the team's radar so when someone is able to take a look, they'll comment here.

[rsese]

But it's definitely on the team's radar so when someone is able to take a look, they'll comment here.

Err sorry, to clarify I mean once @Aerijo's requested changes are addressed please comment back here and we'll ask the team to take a look again when they're able to.

[TiriaAndersen]

@elliotaplant Is this still progressing? Or has it been ostensibly dropped?

[adekbadek]

Hi @elliotaplant – this would be a really cool feature, any chance you might have a look at the requested changes?

[elliotaplant]

Sorry for the multi-year delay! I addressed @Aerijo's requested changes, so hopefully @rsese or someone else on the team can take a look. Thanks!