Add type annotation to convertStoredPropertyToComputed by Padmashree06 · Pull Request #2496 · swiftlang/sourcekit-lsp

Padmashree06 · 2026-02-24T11:29:47Z

Issue: #2459

This PR implements the ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed refactoring in SourceKit-LSP, adopting the new API recently merged in swift-syntax (#3249).

Summary

It integrates cursorInfo into the SyntaxCodeActionScope, allowing the refactoring to resolve types for inferred properties (e.g., let x = 5) by extracting the semantic type from SourceKit's annotated declaration.

Changes

Updated SyntaxCodeActionScope to include [CursorInfo]
Updated the code action request handler to:
- Perform a cursorInfo request
- Add the result to SyntaxCodeActionScope
Added ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed to allSyntaxCodeActionProviders in SyntaxCodeActions.swift

Implementation Details

Implemented SyntaxCodeActionProvider for ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed which:

Attempts to resolve the property type via cursorInfo
Falls back to explicit type annotations if semantic info is unavailable
Passes the resolved type to the refactoring context

ahoppen

A few preliminary review comments before I dive deeper into the implementation.

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:42:03Z

+  }
+
+  private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {
+


Superfluous newline

Thank you for the feedback! I'll remove the unnecessary lines.

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:42:12Z

+import SwiftSyntaxBuilder
+
+extension ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed: SyntaxCodeActionProvider {
+


Superfluous newline

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:43:22Z

    self.snapshot = snapshot
    self.request = request
    self.file = file
+    self.cursorInfo = cursorInfo


I don’t think we set cursorInfo anywhere, do we? Also, we should implement this in a way where the cursor info is only retrieved when it’s actually needed by a refactoring action instead of being set for every syntactic refactoring action.

Thank you for pointing that out!

You’re right, I missed that cursorInfo is not being initialized anywhere. Triggering a cursorInfo request for every syntactic refactoring would indeed be unnecessary overhead.

I’ll remove cursorInfo from SyntaxCodeActionScope. Instead, I’ll first perform a syntactic check to determine whether the type information is missing. Only if semantic resolution is actually required for the refactoring will I trigger a cursorInfo request within the refactoring operation itself, using SwiftLanguageService.cursorInfo.

Please let me know if this approach aligns with your expectations or if there’s anything else I should consider.

Yes, that’s a lot better now with the asynchronous command and it’s the approach I would have preferred until a few weeks ago but now we have codeAction/resolve, which is designed for exactly this workflow. Could you adopt it?

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:48:01Z

+
+  private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {
+
+    guard let start = annotatedDecl.range(of: "<type>"),


Instead of parsing the annotated description, we should use the typename key.

Yes thank you! I'll use typename key instead!

ahoppen · 2026-02-28T18:09:03Z

If you have addressed my comments, it seems like you haven’t pushed your latest changes.

Padmashree06 · 2026-02-28T19:26:54Z

I haven’t pushed the changes yet. I was waiting for confirmation before doing so. I’ll push them shortly.

Padmashree06 · 2026-03-18T09:29:44Z

@ahoppen I’ve updated the implementation based on your feedback.

Cursor info is now fetched only when the type is not explicitly declared.
When a type annotation is present, the refactoring is applied inline.
Otherwise, the semantic.refactor.convertStoredPropertyToComputed command is executed to retrieve cursor info, infer the type semantically, and perform the conversion to a computed property.
I’ve added corresponding CodeAction tests for both cases.

ahoppen · 2026-03-23T10:29:15Z

+        kind: .refactorInline,
+        command: Command(
+          title: "Convert Stored Property to Computed Property",
+          command: "semantic.refactor.convertStoredPropertyToComputed",


Instead of implementing a custom command, do you think you could use the support for codeAction/resolve that @Tabonx added recently in #2549?

ahoppen · 2026-03-23T10:32:51Z

    self.snapshot = snapshot
    self.request = request
    self.file = file
+    self.cursorInfo = cursorInfo


Yes, that’s a lot better now with the asynchronous command and it’s the approach I would have preferred until a few weeks ago but now we have codeAction/resolve, which is designed for exactly this workflow. Could you adopt it?

Padmashree06 · 2026-03-27T20:03:46Z

Yes, I will modify the implementation to use codeAction/resolve

Padmashree06 · 2026-04-12T14:07:37Z

@ahoppen I've updated the implementation to use codeAction/resolve

Padmashree06 requested review from ahoppen, hamishknight and rintaro as code owners February 24, 2026 11:29

ahoppen reviewed Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Padmashree06 force-pushed the add-convertStoredPropertyTocComputed branch from b80521f to 1ef63e7 Compare March 18, 2026 08:46

ahoppen reviewed Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Padmashree06 added 3 commits April 12, 2026 06:07

Add convertStoredPropertyToComputed in CodeActions

59f9620

Refactor ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed to fetch cursor info lazily

f2198b3

Modify workflow according to codeAction/resolve

5d2c8b2

Padmashree06 force-pushed the add-convertStoredPropertyTocComputed branch from 1ef63e7 to 5d2c8b2 Compare April 12, 2026 14:03

		}

		private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {

		import SwiftSyntaxBuilder

		extension ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed: SyntaxCodeActionProvider {


		private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {

		guard let start = annotatedDecl.range(of: "<type>"),

Conversation

Padmashree06 commented Feb 24, 2026

Summary

Changes

Implementation Details

Uh oh!

ahoppen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 Feb 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ahoppen commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Apr 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Padmashree06 Feb 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading