I’m glad that you liked it! My Elixir theme is Tokyo Night
gpereira
gpereira
Hello, the binding do work for me, can you check if it’s correctly configured in your keywords shortcuts?
Unfortunately, no, renames don’t work across the whole project yet, only inside that function module. However, I do intend to work on that next year.
1
synic
@zachdaniel you have to be in a context that has an action, or select a block of code that can be actioned upon. You can see examples of what’s possible here: GitHub - gp-pereira/refactorex: A VS Code extension for fast and reliable Elixir code refactoring. · GitHub
Also vim.lsp.buf.rename() should work to rename local symbols
If you’re using lspconfig, you can use :LspInfo to see if it’s running and attached to the current buffer
2
dimitarvp
Just to report that using AstroNvim I was able to create a file in my config directory with the relative path lua/plugins/refactorex.lua with these contents:
return {
"synic/refactorex.nvim",
ft = "elixir",
---@module "refactorex.nvim"
---@type refactorex.Config
opts = {
auto_update = true,
pin_version = nil,
},
}
Then after opening an Elixir project then refactorex was downloaded and compiled and I was able to see LSP code actions provided by RefactorEx. So it seems your addon is working fine.
Though have in mind that the line with the type shows me a warning:
Undefined type or alias `refactorex.Config`.
But it does not seem to impede any functionality (tried two refactorings and they worked).
1
zachdaniel
Creator of Ash
Something I’m noticing is that if I have content selected in visual line mode, I can use the refactors, but not if I just have some text in visual block. i.e this doesn’t offer a refactor to extract into a variable. Am I doing it wrong?
1
synic
But it does not seem to impede any functionality (tried two refactorings and they worked).
Yeah, that’s just the type hints (if you have lazydev or something - lua_ls supports type hinting sorta like python or typescript). You can remove the ---@module and ---@type hint lines safely
1
gpereira
Hi there, hope you are enjoying the tool so far.
So, the problem you’re facing is that extractors currently work on a specific node of the AST. In the example you provided, the generated AST is:
+
|- +
| |- x
| \- y
\- z
So, selecting y + z really won’t show you any available refactorings because a node like that doesn’t exist in the tree. I see how inconvenient that might be while refactoring math expressions like the example, so I’ll def look into that in the future.
Selecting x + y should yield the expected refactorings.
1