Open
Conversation
added 2 commits
May 6, 2021 15:35
at some point fireplace response types changed, and it became necessary to pass this param as part of fireplace#message
|
Yes, as far as I can tell |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When I try and run a command that rewrites a file, like rename-symbol, I get this error:
Error: [object Object] is not ISeqableWhich stems from refactor-nrepl/fireplace#message returning a non-seqable entity. I'm not familiar with the inetrnals of fireplace or refactor-nrepl but I have learned from some other projects that passing v:t_list coerces the result to a seqable response.
(Pretty sure this is a fix for #31)