Adds testing for semantic lookups by JonatanWaern · Pull Request #202 · intel/dml-language-server

JonatanWaern · 2026-03-02T14:54:20Z

Framework code is vibecoded, tests are largely manually made

Signed-off-by: Jonatan Waernjonatan.waern@intel.com

JonatanWaern · 2026-03-02T14:55:54Z

This testing revealed quite a few bugs in the lookup methodoly on methods, the tests currently do support 'expected' errors with ! or ? annotations, but I may add additional commits on the PR to fix individual bugs before un-drafting this

Largely written in iterations by copilot Signed-off-by: Jonatan Waern<jonatan.waern@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Jonatan Waern <jonatan.waern@intel.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds a test framework and a set of annotation-based integration tests for semantic LSP lookups (goto-definition, goto-declaration, goto-implementation, find-references) in the DML Language Server. It also adds a #[cfg(test)] constructor new_for_testing to InitActionContext to support test setup, and fixes a missing newline at the end of semantic_lookup.rs.

Changes:

New annotation-driven test framework (lsp_lookup_tests.rs) with helpers for loading DML files, parsing @loc/@goto-* annotations, running semantic lookups, and comparing results.
Five new DML test fixture files covering basic lookups, multi-level template inheritance, cross-file references, simple symbolic tests, and goto-implementation scenarios.
Test-only InitActionContext::new_for_testing constructor in src/actions/mod.rs.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 8 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`src/test/lsp_lookup_tests.rs`	New annotation-based test framework and integration tests for all semantic lookup operations
`src/test/mod.rs`	Declares `lsp_lookup_tests` as a `#[cfg(test)]` submodule
`src/actions/mod.rs`	Adds `new_for_testing` constructor for `InitActionContext`, used by the new tests
`src/actions/semantic_lookup.rs`	Trivial: adds missing trailing newline
`src/test/test_files/basic_lookup.dml`	DML fixture for basic LSP lookup tests
`src/test/test_files/multi_level.dml`	DML fixture for multi-level template inheritance tests
`src/test/test_files/simple_symbolic.dml`	DML fixture for simple symbolic annotation tests
`src/test/test_files/goto_impl_test.dml`	DML fixture for goto-implementation tests
`src/test/test_files/cross_file_main.dml`	DML fixture for cross-file reference tests (main file)
`src/test/test_files/imported_file.dml`	DML fixture for cross-file reference tests (imported file)

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:11Z

src/test/test_files/simple_symbolic.dml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+dml 1.4;


The simple_symbolic.dml file is missing the copyright and license header (// © 2024 Intel Corporation and // SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 and MIT) that appears in all other DML test files in this PR (e.g. basic_lookup.dml, multi_level.dml, goto_impl_test.dml, cross_file_main.dml, imported_file.dml).

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:11Z

src/test/lsp_lookup_tests.rs

+    #[test]
+    fn test_cross_file_references() {
+        init_logging();
+        // Load both files - imported file first, then main file with annotations


The inline comment on line 1054 says "Load both files - imported file first, then main file with annotations", but the code on line 1055 does the opposite: cross_file_main.dml is the first element (index 0, used as the main/device file) and imported_file.dml is the second. The comment is misleading and should be corrected to reflect the actual order.

Suggested change

// Load both files - imported file first, then main file with annotations

// Load both files - main file with annotations first, then imported file

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:12Z

src/test/lsp_lookup_tests.rs

+        //          0123456789...
+
+        // Middle of an identifier
+        assert_eq!(extract_token_at(line, 11), "foo_bar");


In test_extract_token_at, the first two assertions (lines 1002 and 1004) are identical — both call extract_token_at(line, 11) and expect "foo_bar". The comment on line 1001 says "Middle of an identifier" but column 11 is actually the start of foo_bar (confirmed by the comment on line 1003), not the middle. The intended "middle" test was likely meant to use a different column (e.g., column 14, which falls inside foo_bar). As written, the test for the "middle of an identifier" case is missing and the same position is tested twice.

Suggested change

assert_eq!(extract_token_at(line, 11), "foo_bar");

assert_eq!(extract_token_at(line, 14), "foo_bar");

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:12Z

src/test/test_files/basic_lookup.dml

+    method m(uint64 value) -> (uint64) { // @goto-ref[21]->bank_m_value_ref
+        // @loc[16]=bank_m_value_ref
+        // @loc[24]=use_bank_shadowed_param_2
+        return value + shadowed_param; // goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def @goto-def-decl[24]->bank_shadowed_param_def


At line 66 of basic_lookup.dml, the annotation goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def is missing the required @ prefix. None of the parsers (RE_OP, RE_OP_NO_COL, RE_UNKNOWN_OP) will match it, so it is silently ignored. The goto-def and goto-decl test for the value parameter reference on that line is effectively not executed. The annotation should be @goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def.

Suggested change

return value + shadowed_param; // goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def @goto-def-decl[24]->bank_shadowed_param_def

return value + shadowed_param; // @goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def @goto-def-decl[24]->bank_shadowed_param_def

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:12Z

src/test/test_files/multi_level.dml

+// @loc[10]=shared_decl_template
+template shared_decl_template {
+    // @loc[19]=shared_method_decl
+    shared method shared_method(); // @goto-impl[19]->shared_method_def @goto-def[19]=shared_method_def @goto-ref[19]->


At line 107 in multi_level.dml, the annotation @goto-def[19]=shared_method_def uses = instead of -> as the separator. None of the annotation parsers (RE_OP, RE_OP_NO_COL, RE_UNKNOWN_OP) will match this, so the annotation is silently dropped and the corresponding goto-def test for shared_method at that position is never executed. The correct syntax is @goto-def[19]->shared_method_def.

Suggested change

shared method shared_method(); // @goto-impl[19]->shared_method_def @goto-def[19]=shared_method_def @goto-ref[19]->

shared method shared_method(); // @goto-impl[19]->shared_method_def @goto-def[19]->shared_method_def @goto-ref[19]->

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:12Z

src/test/test_files/multi_level.dml

+    // @loc[11]=level_1_param
+    param level_1_param default 10;
+    // @loc[12]=level_1_level_0_method
+    method level_0_method() default { // @goto-decl[12]->shared_level_method // @goto-impl->level_1_level_0_method, level_2_level_0_method


At line 33, the annotation @goto-impl->level_1_level_0_method, level_2_level_0_method is missing a required column number. Because the same line also contains a valid @goto-decl[12]-> annotation, the RE_OP_NO_COL guard does not panic — it only panics when RE_OP matches nothing on the line. As a result the @goto-impl annotation is silently dropped and the corresponding goto-implementation test is never run. The annotation should be @goto-impl[12]->level_1_level_0_method, level_2_level_0_method.

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:12Z

src/test/test_files/multi_level.dml

+    // @loc[11]=level_2_param
+    param level_2_param default 100; // @goto-ref[11]->reg_1_level_2_param_ref,reg_2_level_2_param_ref
+    // @loc[12]=level_2_level_0_method
+    method level_0_method() { // @goto-decl[12]-> shared_level_method // @goto-impl->level_2_level_0_method


At line 54, the annotation @goto-impl->level_2_level_0_method is missing a required column number. Because the same line also contains a valid @goto-decl[12]-> annotation, the RE_OP_NO_COL guard does not panic (it only fires when RE_OP fails to match the line at all). As a result, the @goto-impl annotation is silently dropped and the goto-implementation test for level_0_method at level_2_template is never executed. The annotation should be @goto-impl[12]->level_2_level_0_method.

Suggested change

method level_0_method() { // @goto-decl[12]-> shared_level_method // @goto-impl->level_2_level_0_method

method level_0_method() { // @goto-decl[12]-> shared_level_method // @goto-impl[12]->level_2_level_0_method

Copilot · 2026-03-09T10:03:13Z

src/test/test_files/multi_level.dml

+// @loc[10]=level_2_template
+template level_2_template is level_1_template { // @goto-ref[10]->reg1_level_2_template_use, reg2_level_2_template_use @goto-def-decl[30]->level_1_template
+    // @loc[11]=level_2_level_0_param
+    param level_0_param default 2; // @goto-ref[11] -> reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref


At line 46 in multi_level.dml, the annotation @goto-ref[11] -> reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref has an extra space between ] and ->. The RE_OP regex requires ]-> with no space, so this annotation is silently dropped and the find-references test for level_0_param is never executed. The annotation should be written as @goto-ref[11]->reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref (no space before ->).

Suggested change

param level_0_param default 2; // @goto-ref[11] -> reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref

param level_0_param default 2; // @goto-ref[11]->reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref

JonatanWaern force-pushed the vibecoded-testing branch from 9328aca to 8c8cb01 Compare March 2, 2026 15:01

Adds testing for semantic lookups

a66560a

Largely written in iterations by copilot Signed-off-by: Jonatan Waern<jonatan.waern@intel.com>

JonatanWaern force-pushed the vibecoded-testing branch from 8c8cb01 to a66560a Compare March 2, 2026 15:04

Add additional/improved checks for method override lookups

1767399

Signed-off-by: Jonatan Waern <jonatan.waern@intel.com>

JonatanWaern marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2026 09:52

JonatanWaern requested review from TSonono and Copilot March 9, 2026 09:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of JonatanWaern March 9, 2026 09:52 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Adds testing for semantic lookups#202

Adds testing for semantic lookups#202
JonatanWaern wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
vibecoded-testing

JonatanWaern commented Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

JonatanWaern commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

	// Load both files - imported file first, then main file with annotations
	// Load both files - main file with annotations first, then imported file

	assert_eq!(extract_token_at(line, 11), "foo_bar");
	assert_eq!(extract_token_at(line, 14), "foo_bar");

	return value + shadowed_param; // goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def @goto-def-decl[24]->bank_shadowed_param_def
	return value + shadowed_param; // @goto-def-decl[16]->bank_m_value_def @goto-def-decl[24]->bank_shadowed_param_def

	shared method shared_method(); // @goto-impl[19]->shared_method_def @goto-def[19]=shared_method_def @goto-ref[19]->
	shared method shared_method(); // @goto-impl[19]->shared_method_def @goto-def[19]->shared_method_def @goto-ref[19]->

	method level_0_method() { // @goto-decl[12]-> shared_level_method // @goto-impl->level_2_level_0_method
	method level_0_method() { // @goto-decl[12]-> shared_level_method // @goto-impl[12]->level_2_level_0_method

	param level_0_param default 2; // @goto-ref[11] -> reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref
	param level_0_param default 2; // @goto-ref[11]->reg1_level_0_param_ref, reg1_level_1_param_ref

Conversation

JonatanWaern commented Mar 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JonatanWaern commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

JonatanWaern commented Mar 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading