Add implementation for incoming call hierarchy #1

[ellamongo]

Background We would like to resolve the full call stack(with multiple depth) from a method call in Java application. This pr adds related client implementations and tested on Java code. and also fixed some issues when running client with Eclipse LSP on macOs darwin arm64.

This PR:

• Fixed Eclipse LSP not able to run properly on macOs darwin arm64 issue.
• Add client implementations of "prepare call hierarchy" as described here https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-3-16/#textDocument_prepareCallHierarchy
• Add client implementation of "incoming calls " as described here https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-3-16/#callHierarchy_incomingCalls

[LakshyAAAgrawal]

Dear @ellamongo,

This is a great PR, and I believe this resolves #48 . Could you please let me know if you'd like to discuss anything, or would like any help with this?

[microsoft-github-policy-service[bot]]

@ellamongo please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

• (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

• (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

Contribution License Agreement

This Contribution License Agreement (“Agreement”) is agreed to by the party signing below (“You”), and conveys certain license rights to Microsoft Corporation and its affiliates (“Microsoft”) for Your contributions to Microsoft open source projects. This Agreement is effective as of the latest signature date below.

1. Definitions. “Code” means the computer software code, whether in human-readable or machine-executable form, that is delivered by You to Microsoft under this Agreement. “Project” means any of the projects owned or managed by Microsoft and offered under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). “Submit” is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.” “Submission” means the Code and any other copyrightable material Submitted by You, including any associated comments and documentation.
2. Your Submission. You must agree to the terms of this Agreement before making a Submission to any Project. This Agreement covers any and all Submissions that You, now or in the future (except as described in Section 4 below), Submit to any Project.
3. Originality of Work. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work. Should You wish to Submit materials that are not Your original work, You may Submit them separately to the Project if You (a) retain all copyright and license information that was in the materials as You received them, (b) in the description accompanying Your Submission, include the phrase “Submission containing materials of a third party:” followed by the names of the third party and any licenses or other restrictions of which You are aware, and (c) follow any other instructions in the Project’s written guidelines concerning Submissions.
4. Your Employer. References to “employer” in this Agreement include Your employer or anyone else for whom You are acting in making Your Submission, e.g. as a contractor, vendor, or agent. If Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for an employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law, You must secure permission from Your employer to make the Submission before signing this Agreement. In that case, the term “You” in this Agreement will refer to You and the employer collectively. If You change employers in the future and desire to Submit additional Submissions for the new employer, then You agree to sign a new Agreement and secure permission from the new employer before Submitting those Submissions.
5. Licenses.

• Copyright License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties.
• Patent License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project.
• Other Rights Reserved. Each party reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement. No additional licenses or rights whatsoever (including, without limitation, any implied licenses) are granted by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.

6. Representations and Warranties. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above licenses. You represent that each of Your Submissions is entirely Your original work (except as You may have disclosed under Section 3). You represent that You have secured permission from Your employer to make the Submission in cases where Your Submission is made in the course of Your work for Your employer or Your employer has intellectual property rights in Your Submission by contract or applicable law. If You are signing this Agreement on behalf of Your employer, You represent and warrant that You have the necessary authority to bind the listed employer to the obligations contained in this Agreement. You are not expected to provide support for Your Submission, unless You choose to do so. UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING, AND EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES EXPRESSLY STATED IN SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 6, THE SUBMISSION PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
7. Notice to Microsoft. You agree to notify Microsoft in writing of any facts or circumstances of which You later become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any respect.
8. Information about Submissions. You agree that contributions to Projects and information about contributions may be maintained indefinitely and disclosed publicly, including Your name and other information that You submit with Your Submission.
9. Governing Law/Jurisdiction. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in King County, Washington, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The parties waive all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.
10. Entire Agreement/Assignment. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any and all prior agreements, understandings or communications, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be assigned by Microsoft.

[LakshyAAAgrawal]

Dear @ellamongo , I am glad to see the tests succeed on this PR.

Once you are able to accept the cla, I will be able to merge the PR. Thanks for your contribution!

[themichaelusa]

@ellamongo this is a great PR. Thanks for doing this. I'm about to open-source a batteries included callgraph builder, built on top of multilspy. It will definitely speed up construction of callgraphs for LSPs that support callHierarchy.

On a related note @LakshyAAAgrawal, it might be good to keep a list of which LSPs actually implement certain commands, e.g textDocument/prepareCallHierarchy. Should be pretty easy to check that within pytest per language, and then raise implementation errors (or something similar). This is to avoid issues like this [LSP] OmniSharp Feature request: Call Hierarchy #2612, where the command is technically implemented but doesn't do anything.

I can probably do that after this PR, or @ellamongo if you have the time! your call, this is already solid work

[jbellis]

@themichaelusa can you elaborate on why callHierarchy works better for callgraphs? You still have to invoke it per method, no?

[themichaelusa]

@themichaelusa can you elaborate on why callHierarchy works better for callgraphs? You still have to invoke it per method, no?

@jbellis Wrote my last message in a rush - but if the behavior of callHierarchy with outgoingCalls in #48 part (2) that you mentioned is indeed in per file and not per method, then you don't need to resolve references per symbol... which is the primary time bottleneck that I've faced in indexing large repos.

[jbellis]

It looked like I was getting sane results asking for outgoing calls on an entire method at a time, but this was an illusion, it ended up missing things at random

so no it's not a shortcut, LSP is just bad for this use case

[ellamongo]

Hey ya all. @LakshyAAAgrawal TBH the open of this PR here was a mistake, the pr is mainly for internal usage which is more specific to our use case, I was planning to contribute more generic version to this open source 😄 But since we are already here, I will update this pr the weekend according to the comments and ask for review. The most value part of this is pr I think is it fixes the mac arm64 running issue which cost me day to find out wth was happening. All tests throws this error cannot run program /usr/libexec/java_home, I think it's related to the new macos security rules to banning this script from executing & JRE path in config is not properly set in the Eclipse jtdls server. Removing the default=true in config seems fixes the test but I can still see such error occurs in a none fatal way. Looking forward for the multi platform test pipeline you mentioned elsewhere, it will ease this pain for sure!

@themichaelusa definitely agree about the check implementation API, it's cuz our use case is JAVA only for now so I know it's there. Will integrate this API during weekend in my spare time to make this call hierarchy apis complete. Also looking forward for your callgraph builder, it's kinda what we are trying to do as well, I can see it's useful for lots others.

[jbellis]

I'm using Joern for callgraphs now with some success. It's 3 orders of magnitude faster than LSP (~3s vs 30m to build the call graph for 4.5M loc), it has first class support for Java, rich querying. Everything is great except it's written in Scala so using it from a Java project is a bitch and a half, but I got it working.

[LakshyAAAgrawal]

@ellamongo could you please give me access to push your branch, OR can you resolve the merge conflicts, after which I can review, run unit tests and merge?

[VishwasSomasekhariah]

Is there any update on this? @LakshyAAAgrawal

[LakshyAAAgrawal]

Not from my side yet. I am happy to review a PR if you fork from their branch addressing the PR review I have provided above

[youssef-tharwat]

It looked like I was getting sane results asking for outgoing calls on an entire method at a time, but this was an illusion, it ended up missing things at random

so no it's not a shortcut, LSP is just bad for this use case

I'm using Joern for callgraphs now with some success. It's 3 orders of magnitude faster than LSP (~3s vs 30m to build the call graph for 4.5M loc), it has first class support for Java, rich querying. Everything is great except it's written in Scala so using it from a Java project is a bitch and a half, but I got it working.

Anything less annoying to run than Joern to create call graphs? @jbellis