[Bug] Duplicated function in intellisense after addExtraLib

[Shaddix]

Reproducible in vscode.dev or in VS Code Desktop?

• Not reproducible in vscode.dev or VS Code Desktop

Reproducible in the monaco editor playground?

• Not reproducible in the monaco editor playground

Monaco Editor Playground Link

https://microsoft.github.io/monaco-editor/playground.html?source=v0.35.0#XQAAAAI_AgAAAAAAAABBqQkHQ5NjdMjwa-jY7SIQ9S7DNlzs5W-mwj0fe1ZCDRFc9ws9XQE0SJE1jc2VKxhaLFIw9vEWSxW3yscw0ujCMH_KmaUY-oS3CKMkOSajRHzMOh275SgQndWdGyFPATHN_jQG5rOFPT-L8kRd7Az7STn-1YydGSUXwZb8WhGo0LTm9LMOTHHaW-VuaVSEvOtnVqiQcdHtSbJ-MXc4sDBPYRWn9llPd7wkQFMjP-1wIbhnirKgcQ6QYJQWrxfa5BkiuTVNdyljIo8gJsjLpnqDCMW2vX2xR9_7xYNQp_SXP3TiWFimDIX7MBNCCrUtv7Nd9PsGeM7tIg-NcKx52fdfiUJveVPjdykEcohN41wWUrSv8oYLJ8Af0x3ExQXC2m0G-b9UaPGF7dlYR039F7NJ9lOEbgZxN7ctjDPUEqzsRJxEzrYKPxox8liDi33QpT9c_SyopAHM4Fb3JbbAibxH5CF4N0IYWmqkV5veef-yegA-hf7_oC_zRsjSABnU_ySaVgA

Monaco Editor Playground Code

// The Monaco Editor can be easily created, given an
// empty container and an options literal.
// Two members of the literal are "value" and "language".
// The editor takes the full size of its container.

monaco.editor.create(document.getElementById("container"), {
	value: "function hello() {\n\talert('Hello world!');\ntrim()}",
	language: "typescript",
});
monaco.languages.typescript.typescriptDefaults.addExtraLib(
            'function trim(s: string):string;',
            'index.d.ts',
          );

Reproduction Steps

hover over trim function in Preview pane.
Tooltip will be shown: 'function trim(s: string): string (+1 overload)'

(+1 overload) is not expected (since I only defined a single trim function).

Similar thing happens if I type trim( to see autocompletion. It shows like there are 2 overloads of trim function, while actually there's only one.

Actual (Problematic) Behavior

editor behaves like addExtraLib is called twice and shows 2 identical overloads of a function defined in addExtraLib

Expected Behavior

I'd expect a single overload of trim function to exist in autocomplete.

Additional Context

No response

[hediet]

It would be awesome if you could investigate this bug!

Here is our guide how to debug the language support of the monaco editor:
https://github.com/microsoft/monaco-editor/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#debugging--developing-language-support

[Jaxkr]

I also have this bug!

[Jaxkr]

It would be awesome if you could investigate this bug!

Here is our guide how to debug the language support of the monaco editor: https://github.com/microsoft/monaco-editor/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#debugging--developing-language-support

Hey @hediet , trying to fix this bug and I'm running into issues with the instructions: #4383

[Jaxkr]

I found the source of this bug!

The function at getOrCreateModel at https://github.com/microsoft/monaco-editor/blob/main/src/language/typescript/languageFeatures.ts#L116 is being called when the editor tries to autocomplete the function that's in addExtraLib for the first time. It creates a new model that duplicates the content which leads to this false overload error:

This can be fixed by returning null always on getOrCreateModel (seems to have no negative consequences, everything still works).

Alternatively, you can create a model to store the extralib content which also fixes this bug:

const filename = "importedlibs.d.ts";
const a = monaco.editor.createModel(
  `declare module '@test/math' {
	export function myFunFunction(a: number, b: number): number
	}`,
  "typescript",
  monaco.Uri.file(filename)
);

const disposable = monaco.languages.typescript.typescriptDefaults.addExtraLib(
  a.getValue(),
  monaco.Uri.file(filename).toString()
);

Given that using addExtraLib will always result in the internal creation of a model, I think the code snippet above may be the correct (undocumented?) way to use this functionality.

[jcarrus]

@Shaddix , I think #4544 fixes this issue, but it seems like we need some more community approvals to continue. Could you look and test that PR?

Also, @Jaxkr if you wanted to look, I think the change in #4544 works in a similar way to what you are suggesting. I think that your proposed fix of never creating a model here doesn't fix the case where a model for the extra lib is legitimately opened, such as when a user "peeks" the definition.