Warn about missing scheme in the uri

[ryuukk]

More context: #2527

[jwortmann]

Sorry but I would say we don't really need this print statement. With the latest update we already print to the console, but only if debug logging is enabled:

LSP/plugin/locationpicker.py

Lines 34 to 35 in a6b17a4

	msg = f"Unable to open URI {uri}"
	debug(msg)

Also the "perhaps the scheme is missing?" is so generic that it isn't useful; it could also be that perhaps the file doesn't exist, or whatever...

And since a missing URI scheme is a bug in the language server, I'm unsure whether it's really necessary to handle it here. If so, I would say that it should be a proper implementation where parse_uri would raise a

LSP/plugin/core/views.py

Lines 84 to 89 in a6b17a4

	class InvalidUriSchemeException(Exception):
	def __init__(self, uri: str) -> None:
	self.uri = uri
	def __str__(self) -> str:
	return f"invalid URI scheme: {self.uri}"

and then it should catch this exception for example in

LSP/plugin/hover.py

Lines 369 to 370 in a6b17a4

	elif parse_uri(href)[0].lower() in ("", "http", "https"):
	open_in_browser(href)

(and it would need to be checked if there are other places in the code where it must be handled too)

[ryuukk]

I understand you don't want to improve anything

Therefore, you are right, you don't need this helpful error message, since you don't understand the context

I'm closing this

[ryuukk]

You have to do better than the competition if you want to attract people

Just sayin

[predragnikolic]

@ryuukk's your response to constructive criticism was defensive. @jwortmann offered thoughtful feedback, suggesting a more scalable and structured way of handling URI errors. Instead of engaging in a productive discussion, it looks like you seemed to take it personally, as reflected in comments like, "you don't need this helpful error message, since you don't understand the context."

It seems like you are misinterpreting @jwortmann’s feedback. This statement in my eyes is not true "I understand you don't want to improve anything". This might be a misreading of the situation. The feedback was more about proposing a more systematic solution rather than rejecting the idea of improving the error handling.

Rather than assuming that the feedback is dismissive, it is helpful to assume positive intent and engage in a constructive discussion. Asking for clarification or further discussing why a specific improvement was suggested could have fostered a better conversation.