IdeContentProposalAcceptor class does not calculate priorities the same as the ConfigurableCompletionProposal class

Open Beginner friendly

#3,727 opened on Jun 3, 2026 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty: 2/5
Estimated time: 1-3 hours
Newbie friendliness: 68/100

Issue type: Bug
Clarity: Mostly clear
Activity status: Quiet
Tech stack: java
Domain: developer-experience

Research direction

Start in org.eclipse.xtext.ide/src/org/eclipse/xtext/ide/editor/contentassist/IdeContentProposalAcceptor.java at the priority comparison near line 70, then compare it with ConfigurableCompletionProposal. Verify how lower priority values are ordered in Eclipse and IDE/LSP proposals, and check whether existing content-assist tests cover this difference. Done means the ordering is consistent or the intended distinction is explicitly preserved with regression coverage.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

I am currently building a language server for my DSLs and while working on content assist, I noticed that my LSP proposals are sorted the other way around then my Eclipse proposals.

It seems that in Eclipse lower priority means further up in the list, while in IDE/LSP lower priority means further down in the list.

I subclassed IdeContentProposalAcceptor and switched the following statement around:

https://github.com/eclipse-xtext/xtext/blob/fe3f5f7f60719e041d371dc1b3ab1271ef039d46/org.eclipse.xtext.ide/src/org/eclipse/xtext/ide/editor/contentassist/IdeContentProposalAcceptor.java#L70

I changed int prioResult = p2.getKey().compareTo(p1.getKey()); to int prioResult = p1.getKey().compareTo(p2.getKey());.

Is this difference in behaviour intended or can that be changed?

Dominant language: Java
Stars: 831
Forks: 330
Avg merge: 3d 7h
Merged PRs (30d): 12

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Similar issues

[Bug] [Connector-V2] [Http] A streaming Http source never completes a checkpoint: poll_interval_millis is waited out holding the checkpoint lock Open

Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100

apache/seatunnel#12411 · Opened Sep 20, 2026
wafv2: TagResource/UntagResource don't enforce the 50-tag limit or key/value length limits Open

Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100

floci-io/floci#4035 · Opened Sep 20, 2026
[Bug]: 26.3 Missing directional_particles in ConsumeEffect Open

bug needs triage

Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100

Minestom/Minestom#3375 · Opened Sep 20, 2026
The `grepIn` javadoc example never matches real XMIR, so a user who copies it silently gets no optimization Open

Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 94/100

objectionary/hone-maven-plugin#1061 · Opened Sep 20, 2026
Store the original domain event in the Namastack outbox Open

Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100

spring-projects/spring-modulith#1895 · Opened Sep 20, 2026

More Java issues