fix(operators): remove new default grx LSP mapping

[abeldekat]

Details

• New builtin lsp mapping "grx" executes vim.lsp.codelens.run()

  See PR 37689 in neovim/neovim

  This causes test 'Replace works with cmdheight=0' to fail:

  Can not use child.get_screenshot because child process is blocked.

  In mini.operators, default gr* LSP mappings are removed

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md

• I have read CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[abeldekat]

Shall I add the new mapping to MiniMax as <leader>lx?

[echasnovski]

Thanks for the PR!

Could you please more closely follow the 6a6a37e? I.e. almost the same set of changes and the almost the same commit message.

---

Shall I add the new mapping to MiniMax as <leader>lx?

This is a bit early for MiniMax. Let's wait until the Neovim 0.12 release.

Besides, I am not sure that <Leader>lx is a good LHS. I would expect something like <Leader>lc (Codelens) or <Leader>ll (Lens; similar to how <Leader>la is "Actions").

[abeldekat]

Could you please more closely follow the 6a6a37e? I.e. almost the same set of changes and the almost the same commit message.

Done

[echasnovski]

Thanks! Looks better now.

[echasnovski]

Shall I add the new mapping to MiniMax as <leader>lx?

This is a bit early for MiniMax. Let's wait until the Neovim 0.12 release.

Besides, I am not sure that <Leader>lx is a good LHS. I would expect something like <Leader>lc (_C_odelens) or <Leader>ll (_L_ens; similar to how <Leader>la is "_A_ctions").

I've only now realized that vim.lsp.codelens.run() is not new and is present at least since Neovim>=0.10. So adding it to MiniMax can be done now. And I think the <Leader>ll fits more into the current language mapping convention.

But at the same time, I've never really used codelens, so there is no mapping for it already. Do you know any particularly good use for it? Enough to warrant the extra <Leader>ll mapping?

[abeldekat]

But at the same time, I've never really used codelens, so there is no mapping for it already. Do you know any particularly good use for it? Enough to warrant the extra ll mapping?

No, I have never used it as well. I do think it makes sense for MiniMax to provide alternatives for builtin lsp mappings that are deleted.