Add type annotation to convertStoredPropertyToComputed by Padmashree06 · Pull Request #2496 · swiftlang/sourcekit-lsp

Padmashree06 · 2026-02-24T11:29:47Z

Issue: #2459

This PR implements the ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed refactoring in SourceKit-LSP, adopting the new API recently merged in swift-syntax (#3249).

Summary

It integrates cursorInfo into the SyntaxCodeActionScope, allowing the refactoring to resolve types for inferred properties (e.g., let x = 5) by extracting the semantic type from SourceKit's annotated declaration.

Changes

Updated SyntaxCodeActionScope to include [CursorInfo]
Updated the code action request handler to:
- Perform a cursorInfo request
- Add the result to SyntaxCodeActionScope
Added ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed to allSyntaxCodeActionProviders in SyntaxCodeActions.swift

Implementation Details

Implemented SyntaxCodeActionProvider for ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed which:

Attempts to resolve the property type via cursorInfo
Falls back to explicit type annotations if semantic info is unavailable
Passes the resolved type to the refactoring context

ahoppen

A few preliminary review comments before I dive deeper into the implementation.

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:41:29Z

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+import Foundation


Mostly out of curiosity: Why do we need to import Foundation here?

I imported Foundation because I was using String.range(of:) in the extractType helper. However, if we'd prefer to keep the dependencies minimal, I'm happy to switch to native Swift String methods like firstRange(of:) and remove the import entirely. Let me know what you'd prefer!

You’r no longer using that anymore though, right?

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:42:03Z

+  }
+
+  private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {
+


Superfluous newline

Thank you for the feedback! I'll remove the unnecessary lines.

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:42:12Z

+import SwiftSyntaxBuilder
+
+extension ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed: SyntaxCodeActionProvider {
+


Superfluous newline

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:43:22Z

    self.snapshot = snapshot
    self.request = request
    self.file = file
+    self.cursorInfo = cursorInfo


I don’t think we set cursorInfo anywhere, do we? Also, we should implement this in a way where the cursor info is only retrieved when it’s actually needed by a refactoring action instead of being set for every syntactic refactoring action.

Thank you for pointing that out!

You’re right, I missed that cursorInfo is not being initialized anywhere. Triggering a cursorInfo request for every syntactic refactoring would indeed be unnecessary overhead.

I’ll remove cursorInfo from SyntaxCodeActionScope. Instead, I’ll first perform a syntactic check to determine whether the type information is missing. Only if semantic resolution is actually required for the refactoring will I trigger a cursorInfo request within the refactoring operation itself, using SwiftLanguageService.cursorInfo.

Please let me know if this approach aligns with your expectations or if there’s anything else I should consider.

Yes, that’s a lot better now with the asynchronous command and it’s the approach I would have preferred until a few weeks ago but now we have codeAction/resolve, which is designed for exactly this workflow. Could you adopt it?

ahoppen · 2026-02-25T08:48:01Z

+
+  private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {
+
+    guard let start = annotatedDecl.range(of: "<type>"),


Instead of parsing the annotated description, we should use the typename key.

Yes thank you! I'll use typename key instead!

ahoppen · 2026-02-28T18:09:03Z

If you have addressed my comments, it seems like you haven’t pushed your latest changes.

Padmashree06 · 2026-02-28T19:26:54Z

I haven’t pushed the changes yet. I was waiting for confirmation before doing so. I’ll push them shortly.

Padmashree06 · 2026-03-18T09:29:44Z

@ahoppen I’ve updated the implementation based on your feedback.

Cursor info is now fetched only when the type is not explicitly declared.
When a type annotation is present, the refactoring is applied inline.
Otherwise, the semantic.refactor.convertStoredPropertyToComputed command is executed to retrieve cursor info, infer the type semantically, and perform the conversion to a computed property.
I’ve added corresponding CodeAction tests for both cases.

ahoppen · 2026-03-23T10:29:15Z

+        kind: .refactorInline,
+        command: Command(
+          title: "Convert Stored Property to Computed Property",
+          command: "semantic.refactor.convertStoredPropertyToComputed",


Instead of implementing a custom command, do you think you could use the support for codeAction/resolve that @Tabonx added recently in #2549?

ahoppen · 2026-03-23T10:30:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+import Foundation


You’r no longer using that anymore though, right?

ahoppen · 2026-03-23T10:32:51Z

    self.snapshot = snapshot
    self.request = request
    self.file = file
+    self.cursorInfo = cursorInfo


Yes, that’s a lot better now with the asynchronous command and it’s the approach I would have preferred until a few weeks ago but now we have codeAction/resolve, which is designed for exactly this workflow. Could you adopt it?

Padmashree06 · 2026-03-27T20:03:46Z

Yes, I will modify the implementation to use codeAction/resolve

Padmashree06 · 2026-04-12T14:07:37Z

@ahoppen I've updated the implementation to use codeAction/resolve

This is the first syntactic refactoring action that needs to perform a cursor info request on `codeAction/resolve`, so the majority of this PR is to add infrastructure for that. Based on swiftlang#2496. Co-Authored-By: Padmashree S S <padmashreess2006@gmail.com>

ahoppen · 2026-04-27T10:46:12Z

Sorry for the delayed response, I was on vacation for the last couple of weeks.

I just took a deeper dive into the implementation and was a little uneasy with how ad-hoc the implementation was for this particular refactoring action because I think we need similar support for more refactoring actions in the future. I would have really liked to make some suggestion for a better design but needed to really dive into it myself to explore alternatives and once I arrived at one, I pretty much had a working implementation ready, so I ended up opening #2622. I would appreciate your feedback on that PR, let’s continue the conversation over there. Thanks for the work you did here to get this started.

Padmashree06 · 2026-05-02T11:55:56Z

@ahoppen Thanks for the review and for taking a deeper look into this. I understand your concerns about the implementation being too specific. I’ll go through #2622 and add my inputs there!

Padmashree06 requested review from ahoppen, hamishknight and rintaro as code owners February 24, 2026 11:29

ahoppen reviewed Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Padmashree06 force-pushed the add-convertStoredPropertyTocComputed branch from b80521f to 1ef63e7 Compare March 18, 2026 08:46

ahoppen reviewed Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Padmashree06 added 3 commits April 12, 2026 06:07

Add convertStoredPropertyToComputed in CodeActions

59f9620

Refactor ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed to fetch cursor info lazily

f2198b3

Modify workflow according to codeAction/resolve

5d2c8b2

Padmashree06 force-pushed the add-convertStoredPropertyTocComputed branch from 1ef63e7 to 5d2c8b2 Compare April 12, 2026 14:03

ahoppen mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2026

Add refactoring action to convert stored to computed properties #2622

Open

ahoppen closed this Apr 27, 2026

		}

		private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {

		import SwiftSyntaxBuilder

		extension ConvertStoredPropertyToComputed: SyntaxCodeActionProvider {


		private static func extractType(from annotatedDecl: String) -> String? {

		guard let start = annotatedDecl.range(of: "<type>"),

Conversation

Padmashree06 commented Feb 24, 2026

Summary

Changes

Implementation Details

Uh oh!

ahoppen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 Feb 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ahoppen commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Feb 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented Apr 12, 2026

Uh oh!

ahoppen commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Padmashree06 commented May 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Padmashree06 Feb 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading