Suggesting; make "files.exclude" to have ${workspaceFolder:<foldername>} prefix for multi-root workspace

[lostfields]

• VSCode Version: 1.22

I would love to have more flexibility in "files.exlude" for multi-root workspace. I've tried relative paths but that doesn't work since "files.exclude" is applied to each folder. If I'm hiding folder "build" I don't want to hide it from all folders.

I know I can have .vscode/settings.json but I don't want to check these files into my source control

"folders": [
		{
			"name": "root",
			"path": "."
		},
		{
			"name": "website",
			"path": "./app"
		},
		{
			"name": "api",
			"path": "./src"
		}
	],
	"settings": {
		"files.exclude": {
			"**/.git": true,
			"**/.vscode": true,
			"${workspaceFolder:root}/build": true
		}
	}
}

Hides build in folder root but still showing it in folder website

[roblourens]

I wonder whether we want to be able to set settings in general for a particular folder in a workspace file, without adding it to that folders' settings.json. @sandy081? Of course that would just make settings editing more complicated.

Otherwise I'm not opposed to this.

[sandy081]

I do not think it is related to folder/workspace settings. In this scenario, it is up to the setting files.exclude to decide if they want to support variables or not. This is pretty similar to how MR workspace debug configurations support root variables. So, I would leave this to owner of that particular setting.

@bpasero @isidorn FYI

[isidorn]

Sounds simlar to an open feature request that settings should support variables resolving.

[sandy081]

Not exactly, because how does the configuration knows what to resolve. In this case it is a key that has to be resolved.

[roblourens]

@sandy081 What I'm getting at is, we could solve it without variables by having a way to set files.exclude in a normal way, just scoped to one folder. That would work in general for all settings. I don't know whether that's been discussed before. But I'm lukewarm on adding a 4th settings scope.

[lostfields]

I'm not aware of everything or how thing should work, but I'll try to throw something in.

What if all paths in files.exclude can be both relative and absolute? Absolute paths were applied to all folders (/build), and relative paths were applied to folders that matches the relative location of workspace file (./build)?

I was thinking this since folders[].path can be both relative and absolute when referering workspace folders

[sandy081]

@roblourens

we could solve it without variables by having a way to set files.exclude in a normal way, just scoped to one folder

Do you mean folder settings in MR workspace or support settings in every folder?

IMO this makes sense supporting by files.exclude setting as it is very specific to it.

[roblourens]

Do you mean folder settings in MR workspace

Yeah, specifying folder settings in the workspace file.

IMO this makes sense supporting by files.exclude setting as it is very specific to it.

Maybe - this one case just involves files.exclude but I can imagine someone having the same request for other settings. If this ability is useful, I don't know why it would only be useful for files.exclude and no other setting.

[lostfields]

One thing I may want to mention, I have problems with https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=maty.vscode-mocha-sidebar when defining the path (mocha.files.glob) of test-files in a workspace. The path is relative to the first folder in "folders" so I can't rearrange the folders in the workspace-file.

[vscodebot]

This iteration we focus on issue grooming. This issue is being closed to keep the number of issues in our inbox on a manageable level, we are closing issues that are not going to be addressed in the foreseeable future: We look at the number of votes the issue has received and the number of duplicate issues filed. More details here. If you disagree and feel that this issue is crucial: We are happy to listen and to reconsider.

If you wonder what we are up to, please see our roadmap and issue reporting guidelines.

Thanks for your understanding and happy coding!

[dfoverdx]

This is essentially a duplicate of #82145. The documentation hints that the desired effect is possible, but does not clearly explain it. This is the intended solution: link.

[cloph]

requiring a separate settings.json in one of the folders is a workaround at best, but not a real solution.

[dfoverdx]

requiring a separate settings.json in one of the folders is a workaround at best, but not a real solution.

I don't disagree, but I do believe it's the dev team's intended solution.