Maintenance mode?

[klazuka]

Hi @durkiewicz . With Elm 0.19 coming out soon (hopefully), I was wondering what you were going to do with respect to this plugin? Based on previous discussion, it doesn't sound like you will be adding 0.19 support, in which case would you mind putting something in the Readme directing users to my version of the plugin.

Thanks again for all the work you've done.

[durkiewicz]

I don't know what is going to be in Elm 0.19, so I cannot estimate an effort of adjusting the plugin. I also have not tried your plugin yet so I do not know if it provides everything that this plugin provides.

I know that Elm 0.19 is going to have one critical compilation performance improvement which might be a game changer from my point of view so I do not exclude a possibility of going back to Elm and to active development of the plugin.

As you see, I cannot make such a decision yet for multiple reasons.

[klazuka]

Ok, makes sense.

The biggest change in 0.19 from the perspective of a plugin author is that dependencies are now stored in the user's home directory (rather than local elm-stuff directory). For IntelliJ we relied on elm-stuff being a source root. But in 0.19 that assumption is going to be wrong more often than it's not. So you have to parse the user's elm-package.json file to find the dependencies and create proper source roots for each one.

I think the only thing lacking from my plugin vs yours is that I do not attempt auto-completion on record fields. Your implementation assumed that all record field names that were in scope were valid, which is not going to be right all the time. My plan is to hold off on doing record field completion/references until I implement the Elm type system in the plugin.

The main improvements in my plugin are:

• Find Usages works (PsiReference system has been rebuilt)
• Rename File/Module refactoring (renames files/modules/imports/qualified-refs)
• Quick Docs (parses doc comments)

[klazuka]

@durkiewicz Elm 0.19 is out now

[durkiewicz]

Hi Keith,

I've finally made a decision to give up. Thank you for your valuable help in developing some features of the plugin. I've put your plugin as a suggestion in the README file - good luck with development!

This plugin is also requested to be removed from IntelliJ's plugin repository so users will have to switch to your one.

[amcsi]

@durkiewicz hey thanks for working on this project initially. If you hadn't made this project initially, I probably would not have gone into trying out Elm :)

[klazuka]

@durkiewicz thanks. Just like @amcsi, without your plugin I probably wouldn't have been able to get the rest of my team to use Elm (we all use IntelliJ heavily for the rest of our work). And as someone who has now implemented one of these IntelliJ plugins, I know how much work it is 😄

[bgourlie]

@durkiewicz Just wanted to chime in and say thank you for the effort with this plugin, and also a thank you to @klazuka for his continued development. I'm very appreciative of the work both of you have put in.