Going to definition does not work for macro commands.

[Mideks]

When I hover the mouse over a regular function, I get a hint of its documentation, and I can also go to the definition using ctrl+click

however, if the function call is part of a macro, I don't get the documentation and can't go to the definition.

Code_lLb2QlVPgT.mp4

[Papierkorb2292]

Wait, before I get to the macro issue, I need to check something else: This is weird, the highlighting doesn't look correct. I think the highlighting in the video is coming from the syntax-mcfunction extension, not from CommandCrafter. Comments look almost the same, but the commands are colored very differently (CommandCrafter would usually add way more colors, see the example picture in the README). Is that on purpose or is there maybe something wrong with the settings?

Thing is, the current release of CommandCrafter does not read in macro commands at all. Meaning it also does not highlight them at all (Which I know is arguably worse than Spyglass, where macros are at least highlighted like strings and $(macro) names are also colored). It also means that CommandCrafter can't do auto completion or hovers or go-to-definition or anything within macros. This is also why the highlighting that you're seeing in the macro command must be coming from syntax-mcfunction

Why does Spyglass and CommandCrafter work this way? Well, this issue has been raised for Spyglass a couple of times and the answer was that there is no good way to parse a macro without knowing what the macro parameters are. For example, if the command is $execute $(my_macro) diamond 64, who's to say whether my_macro will resolve to run give @a or resolve to run scoreboard players set @p? Granted, that's a very specific example, but Spyglass did not want to go through the effort of making some parser that attempts to guess what the command might be. (Although potentially this will be improved in the future when the next version of IMP doc can provide some info on the possible values that macro variables are allowed to take).
For this reason, no released extension really parses macros. The only thing syntax-mcfunction does with macros (and with any other command) is trying to find some parts of the command that look like literals or ids or nbt or selectors, but it's quite limited (as you can see by the rather basic highlighting) and you can't do auto-complete or anything more advanced with that.

Now, that being said, I was aware that not highlighting macros at all is kind of unhelpful when I wrote the function highlighting. Thus, last autumn, I actually started writing some parser that attempts to guess what the command might be. And with that you would indeed get highlighting and auto-complete and hovers and "go-to-definition". It's just that this isn't actually released yet, partly because I still want to test it more, but mostly because I'm waiting on some other stuff. I'm hoping it will release in a couple of weeks, but no promises. Actually, for other reasons, what I can promise is that at the very latest it will be released with the update to 26.1
But also, I'm always looking for more testers. If you want I could send you a test build of the project that does all the macro stuff so you get to try it out. (Or you can also build it yourself from the "0.6.0" branch if you want)

[Mideks]

Yes, the highlighting is indeed from the plugin syntax-mcfunction'. I turned off the highlighting in CommandCrafter` because its colors seemed unusual to me.

In fact, the reason for this behavior sounds pretty logical, yes.
But, although I haven't used macros that often, it seems they would most often be used as one of the command arguments. Therefore, your example really looks quite synthetic.

And yes, I can help test the new version. But I'm unlikely to be able to handle the build quickly - I've never had to work with a Kotlin before.

[Papierkorb2292]

Alright, actually glad to hear that about the highlighting, I always worry that the settings are not accessible enough, but seems to be okay

Anyway, yeah most of the time it's just one argument, but I've actually got a file with a few thousand macro commands pulled from GitHub and there are also commands like $execute $(body) run ..., $execute as @$(at)[...] or clear @s $(item_3)[...] and it would be weird if the parser stopped working as soon as a macro stepped a little bit out of line.

I think as long as you have Java installed the build process should be pretty straightforward, it's the same system as Java and I've got some instructions in the wiki. However the build command will download a lot of files cause Minecraft has a lot of dependencies. But otherwise, you can also message me on discord @Papierkorb2292 and I'll send you the files there. I don't want to send them over GitHub because I like to keep track of who is already using the test version.

[Mideks]

there are also commands like $execute $(body) run ..., $execute as @$(at)[...] or clear @s $(item_3)[...]

These commands look pretty weird, aha.

Now I'm trying to download the necessary dependencies (it seems like it's going to take a long time...), and I'll try to build a new version.
I also sent you a friend request in the discord (I couldn't write)