You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am a data scientist. I have a blanket user-level **/*.json exclusion. That works great for me because typically I treat JSON files as data files.
Sometimes, I may be working on a web project where actually most JSON files are config files.
Then it becomes really useful to be able to include JSON files in my searches.
And yet, there is no "search.include" setting that would allow me to do that.
Instead, I am forced to either:
Accept that I cannot search JSON files.
Remove my user-level "**/*.json" exclude and then for all my Python projects, readd it at the workspace level.
I would like to request the introduction of a "search.include" setting.
This is not a duplicate of #869 and I would kindly request that this does not be closed like what happened to #203063.
In #203063, @andreamah wrote "Although your use case is different, the implications and implementation of a search.include should also consider the use cases that others have for creating more advanced file/search globbing" -- her comment very clearly notes that the "use case is different". The request itself is different as #869 is focused on making "files.exclude" more advanced.
What I am saying though is that even if you made file.exclude more advanced, how are you going to override parent-defined exclusions?
That is why "search.include" is necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am a data scientist. I have a blanket user-level
**/*.json
exclusion. That works great for me because typically I treat JSON files as data files.Sometimes, I may be working on a web project where actually most JSON files are config files.
Then it becomes really useful to be able to include JSON files in my searches.
And yet, there is no "search.include" setting that would allow me to do that.
Instead, I am forced to either:
I would like to request the introduction of a "search.include" setting.
This is not a duplicate of #869 and I would kindly request that this does not be closed like what happened to #203063.
In #203063, @andreamah wrote "Although your use case is different, the implications and implementation of a search.include should also consider the use cases that others have for creating more advanced file/search globbing" -- her comment very clearly notes that the "use case is different". The request itself is different as #869 is focused on making "files.exclude" more advanced.
What I am saying though is that even if you made file.exclude more advanced, how are you going to override parent-defined exclusions?
That is why "search.include" is necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: