[BUG] option passed to `ui_select()` ignored when source is code actions

[Bekaboo]

Info

• Operating System: Linux xps-13-7390 6.6.10-arch1-1
• Shell: fish
• Terminal: alacritty 0.13.1 (fe2a3c56) + tmux 3.3a
• nvim --version: NVIM v0.10.0-dev-2074+g786089013d
• fzf --version: 0.44.1 (29e67d30)

• [ ] The issue is reproducible with mini.sh

fzf-lua configuration

```lua local fzf = require('fzf-lua') fzf.setup({ winopts = { split = 'botright 12new', }, }) local fzf_ui = require('fzf-lua.providers.ui_select') fzf_ui.register(function(_, items) return { winopts = { split = string.format('botright %dnew', math.min(10, #items + 1)), }, } end) ```

Description

According to #755, the ui_select provider's register() function can accept a callback function to change options dynamically according to the context, I use it to change the fzf window heihgt when different number of candicates are given to vim.ui.select() and it works pretty well:

• when using other "normal" providers, e.g. files, use 12 rows as configured in the setup() function:

  

• ui select, 6 candidates provided, only use 7 rows as configured in the ui_select register() function callback:

  

• however, when it comes to code actions, my configure for ui select is ignored, here we only have 4 candidates but still fzf uses 12 rows:

  

[ibhagwan]

This isn’t a bug, with code actions the options are inherited from lsp.code_actions: https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/blob/faf850e03555512960b5ed1cb1fa50de6f586644/lua/fzf-lua/providers/ui_select.lua#L132-L134

If you wish to override these you need to setup lsp.code_actions: https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/blob/faf850e03555512960b5ed1cb1fa50de6f586644/lua/fzf-lua/defaults.lua#L704-L709

[Bekaboo]

Hi thanks for your quick response, it there a way I can make the behavior more consistent i.e. make code actions respect the ui select options?

This isn’t a bug, with code actions the options are inherited from lsp.code_actions

Does it mean that when it comes to code actions fzf does not respect the general options for ui select? I am a bit confused. Why should code actions be different from other cases? Thanks!

[ibhagwan]

Does it mean that when it comes to code actions fzf does not respect the general options for ui select? I am a bit confused. Why should code actions be different from other cases? Thanks!

This goes both ways, most people don’t get as deep as customizing to this level and expect code actions to respect their setup settings.

[Bekaboo]

Here's what I thought: I registered fzf ui_select provider as vim.ui.select(), so any other modules calling this function can use fzf lua as an interface... it works great in all cases except for code actions. I assume nvim's LSP client will call vim.ui.select() in the code actions handler? So the code path should be the same, but why the height configuration is ignored? I am so confused 🤔

[Bekaboo]

I see, thanks. Do you think this can be made more consistent or we should just keep what it is right now?

[ibhagwan]

I see, thanks. Do you think this can be made more consistent or we should just keep what it is right now?

I'll add an option so both use cases can be satisfied

[Bekaboo]

Thanks, this can be closed now.

[ibhagwan]

We can close it once we sort this out properly, note that by doing so you'd lose the code action previewer (which was one of the main reasons I decided on inheriting from defaults).

[Bekaboo]

https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/blob/faf850e03555512960b5ed1cb1fa50de6f586644/lua/fzf-lua/providers/ui_select.lua#L142

Will it work if we simply change "keep" to "force" in this line?

If no opts for ui select is passed in -- then good we are using the opts from the setup function, if there is opts for ui select then it takes precedence, in this case the user opt-in to apply the config for ui select so the change should not be breaking.

[ibhagwan]

https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/blob/faf850e03555512960b5ed1cb1fa50de6f586644/lua/fzf-lua/providers/ui_select.lua#L142

Will it work if we simply change "keep" to "force" in this line?

If no opts for ui select is passed in -- then good we are using the opts from the setup function, if there is opts for ui select then it takes precedence, in this case the user opt-in to apply the config for ui select so the change should not be breaking.

I’ll do some testing when I’m not AFK and I think this could be a good solution without introducing yet another config option.

[ibhagwan]

@Bekaboo, try https://github.com/ibhagwan/fzf-lua/commit/3d526d24436312cf4e05fbd27452ab2d0ef383cc - it keeps the behavior as is when running :FzfLua lsp_code_actions but overrides the options with force as you suggested **only when using vim.lsp.buf.code_action() directly.

I believe this is a good compromise as users running lsp_code_actions expect their options to be fully respected.

[Bekaboo]

It works pretty well!

[ibhagwan]

It works pretty well!

Very nice @Bekaboo! Closing.