Notebook protocol go-to-definition support

[jasongrout]

This is a work-in-progress PR to add go to definition support on top of the notebook protocol developed in #389 by @tkrabel-db.

Likely each plugin, such as go to definition, will need to be modified to support the notebook syncing messages. We'll try to abstract out general patterns where possible, though.

[jasongrout]

I think this minimally works, and the test passes now.

[ccordoba12]

Hey @jasongrout, nice to see you here! I took a quick look at PR #389 and it looks quite good, so I'll try to merge it next week.

[jasongrout]

Hey @jasongrout, nice to see you here! I took a quick look at PR #389 and it looks quite good, so I'll try to merge it next week.

Awesome! @tkrabel-db and I are using python-lsp-server at Databricks for LSP support, and we are excited to contribute things like notebook protocol support that would be helpful for the whole community. As you saw on the other ticket, @tkrabel-db is eager to iterate on this repo to help maintain and improve the dev workflow as well.

[ccordoba12]

As you saw on the other ticket, @tkrabel-db is eager to iterate on this repo to help maintain and improve the dev workflow as well.

Great! That would be really helpful because I don't have much time lately to maintain this project.

[jasongrout]

I rebased this PR on top of the develop branch, now that #389 is merged.

[ccordoba12]

@jasongrout, this only requires to fix the code style issues reported by our failing workflow. The rest looks good to me.

[jasongrout]

I pushed some changes that address the pylint errors. The biggest change is factoring out extracting the cell data (pylint was complaining about too many local variables, as a hint that the complexity was too large).

Since the black formatting PR was merged, of course there are conflicts. My hope is that running black on this pr will be enough to resolve those, though.

[jasongrout]

@ccordoba12, @tkrabel-db - I think this is ready for review again.

[ccordoba12]

@jasongrout, please merge again with develop to get the changes done in PR #418 and see if your PR passes with them.

[ccordoba12]

@jasongrout, please run black again on test_notebook_document.py to make our style checks pass.

Then I'll merge, unless @tkrabel-db has something else to say.

[jasongrout]

@jasongrout, please run black again on test_notebook_document.py to make our style checks pass.

Done!

[ccordoba12]

Thanks @jasongrout!

[jasongrout]

@ccordoba12 - we're trying to figure out a plan for deploying the changes in this PR. Do you have a rough idea of a timeline for releasing 1.8.0? If it's going to be a while, would it be possible to do a 1.8.0 prerelease? What can we do to help with the 1.8.0 release?

[ccordoba12]

What can we do to help with the 1.8.0 release?

There are some minor issues that I'd like to address for 1.8.0, so if you could give me a hand with them, I'd really appreciate it. They have to do with preventing simple errors here and there.

[smacke]

There are some minor issues that I'd like to address for 1.8.0, so if you could give me a hand with them, I'd really appreciate it.

I actually didn't see this before I started going through, but I think I have PRs open now that should address all of these:

• Allow method handlers to return json rpc errors python-lsp-jsonrpc#20 for allowing method dispatcher to respond with errors to the json rpc library
• Use invalid request handler rather than raising key error for requests after shutdown #432 to use that to respond with an invalid request for any requests that come in post-shutdown
• Fix null reference for syntax errors due to invalid encodings (Pyflakes) #433 to handle syntax errors with empty text due to invalid encodings
• Don't set cwd in Popen kwargs when document root is empty (flake8) #434 to deal with the issue on windows that doesn't like an empty cwd for Popen kwargs

Since the first one requires a change on the json rpc side, it probably needs a version bump in the requirements there as well -- let me know if I can help with that.

[ccordoba12]

Thanks a lot @smacke for your help with this! I'll review your PRs tomorrow.

Since the first one requires a change on the json rpc side, it probably needs a version bump in the requirements there as well -- let me know if I can help with that.

No worries, I'll take care of that when doing the release.

[smacke]

Thanks a lot @smacke for your help with this! I'll review your PRs tomorrow.

No problem and awesome! Thanks a bunch Carlos.

[ccordoba12]

I just released 1.8.0. Thanks guys for all your help!