Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

psl: allow to remove position information from ast #4792

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

SevInf
Copy link
Contributor

@SevInf SevInf commented Mar 25, 2024

Negates a bit of QE size increase

This commit implements multi-file schema handling in the Prisma Schema Language.

At a high level, instead of accepting a single string, `psl::validate_multi_file()` is an alternative to `psl::validate()` that accepts something morally equivalent to:

```json
{
  "./prisma/schema/a.prisma": "datasource db { ... }",
  "./prisma/schema/nested/b.prisma": "model Test { ... }"
}
```

There are tests for PSL validation with multiple schema files, but most of the rest of engines still consumes the single file version of `psl::validate()`. The implementation and the return type are shared between `psl::validate_multi_file()` and `psl::validate()`, so the change is completely transparent, other than the expectation of passing in a list of (file_name, file_contents) instead of a single string. The `psl::validate()` entry point should behave exactly the same as `psl::multi_schema()` with a single file named `schema.prisma`. In particular, it has the exact same return type.

Implementation
==============

This is achieved by extending `Span` to contain, in addition to a start and end offset, a `FileId`. The `FileId` is a unique identifier for a file and its parsed `SchemaAst` inside `ParserDatabase`. The identifier types for AST items in `ParserDatabase` are also extended to contain the `FileId`, so that they can be uniquely referred to in the context of the (multi-file) schema. After the analysis phase (the `parser_database` crate), consumers of the analyzed schema become multi-file aware completely transparently, no change is necessary in the other engines.

The only changes that will be required at scattered points across the codebase are the `psl::validate()` call sites that will need to receive a `Vec<Box<Path>, SourceFile>` instead of a single `SourceFile`. This PR does _not_ deal with that, but it makes where these call sites are obvious by what entry points they use: `psl::validate()`, `psl::parse_schema()` and the various `*_assert_single()` methods on `ParserDatabase`.

The PR contains tests confirming that schema analysis, validation and displaying diagnostics across multiple files works as expected.

Status of this PR
=================

This is going to be directly mergeable after review, and it will not affect the current schema handling behaviour when dealing with a single schema file.

Next steps
==========

- Replace all calls to `psl::validate()` with calls to `psl::validate_multi_file()`.
- The `*_assert_single()` calls should be progressively replaced with their multi-file counterparts across engines.
- The language server should start sending multiple files to prisma-schema-wasm in all calls. This is not in the spirit of the language server spec, but that is the most immediate solution. We'll have to make `range_to_span()` in `prisma-fmt` multi-schema aware by taking a FileId param.

Links
=====

Relevant issue: prisma/prisma#2377

Also see the [internal design doc](https://www.notion.so/prismaio/Multi-file-Schema-24d68fe8664048ad86252fe446caac24?d=68ef128f25974e619671a9855f65f44d#2889a038e68c4fe1ac9afe3cd34978bd).
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 25, 2024

WASM Size

Engine This PR Base branch Diff
Postgres 2.099MiB 2.110MiB -11.709KiB
Postgres (gzip) 826.770KiB 830.589KiB -3.820KiB
Mysql 2.067MiB 2.078MiB -10.687KiB
Mysql (gzip) 813.260KiB 817.128KiB -3.869KiB
Sqlite 1.958MiB 1.968MiB -10.217KiB
Sqlite (gzip) 772.169KiB 776.139KiB -3.970KiB

Base automatically changed from psl-multi-file-schema to main April 8, 2024 08:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants