Make "args": "${command:pickArgs}" as default debug configuration #548
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is related to these issues:
microsoft/vscode#225834
microsoft/vscode#232560
#233
#465
#497
I searched
repo:microsoft/vscode-python-debugger command:pickArgs
filtered by code, and find four snippet in thee files.vscode-python-debugger/src/extension/debugger/configuration/providers/fileLaunchWithArgs.ts
Lines 21 to 27 in 1b6ac0d
vscode-python-debugger/src/test/unittest/configuration/providers/fileLaunchWithArgs.unit.test.ts
Lines 28 to 34 in 1b6ac0d
vscode-python-debugger/package.json
Lines 286 to 306 in 1b6ac0d
In lines 286 to 306 of
package.json
, it shows three usages of theargs
parameter. The first is that the value of theargs
parameter is "${command:pickArgs}", the second is to provide an array, and the third is to provide a string.In the vscode documentation, it is also mentioned:
Therefore, I think the two files
fileLaunchWithArgs.ts
andfileLaunchWithArgs.unit.test.ts
are the key factors affecting this problem. Then I delete the [ ] in these two code snippets.When I wrote this PR, I checked the file modification history and found that the modification in PR #385 added [ ], but this was completely wrong (refer to the discussion of issue #497), and was not the correct way to solve issue #233 (PR #499 solved the problem), and led to a series of issues listed at the beginning.
Just consider this PR to have coincidentally performed a "revert" operation.