Skip to content

feat(server): share process across multiple instances #159

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
jinzhongjia wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

feat(server): share process across multiple instances #159

jinzhongjia wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor

@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia commented Jan 2, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Title

feat(server): share opencode server process across multiple Neovim instances

Summary

This PR implements a shared server mechanism that allows multiple Neovim instances to share a single opencode serve process, reducing resource usage and improving startup time for subsequent instances.

Problem

Previously, each Neovim instance spawned its own opencode serve process. When working with multiple projects simultaneously, this resulted in:

  • Multiple redundant server processes consuming system resources
  • Slower startup time for each new instance
  • No coordination between instances

Solution

Implement a lock file mechanism at ~/.cache/nvim/opencode-server.lock that tracks:

  • Server URL
  • Owner PID (the instance that spawned the server)
  • Client PIDs (all instances using the server)

Key features:

  • Automatic server discovery: New instances check for an existing healthy server before spawning
  • Graceful cleanup: Server only terminates when the last client disconnects
  • Race condition prevention: File locking mechanism prevents concurrent access issues
  • Health checks: Validates existing server is responsive before reusing

Lock File Format

url=http://localhost:4096
clients=12345,67890,11111

Testing

  • All existing tests pass
  • New unit tests for lock file operations (14 tests)
  • Manual testing with multiple Neovim instances

@jinzhongjia
feat(server): share process across multiple instances
80d02d2 
Add a lock file mechanism to coordinate a single server process among
multiple Neovim clients. Track ownership and active clients in
opencode-server.lock to ensure the process persists until the last
instance closes. Additionally, implement URI encoding for API queries.
@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2026 11:54
@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 2, 2026 •
edited
Loading

This PR is generated by AI with opencode and oh my opencode, but I have reviewed this code carefully.

I think this code is ok

@jinzhongjia
test(server_job): mock try_existing_server in unit tests
421dbcf
@jinzhongjia
test(util): add year-aware matching for date formats
2d164f8 
Add logic to tests/unit/util_spec.lua to handle year transitions in
date formatting. The assertions now check the year of the timestamp
to determine if the year should be present in the output string.
@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia marked this pull request as draft January 2, 2026 12:11
@jinzhongjia
refactor(server): replace owner logic with server pid
4470cd4 
Replace the `owner` field in the lock file with `server_pid` to
explicitly track the background process. Update `unregister_client`
to return this PID and remove client promotion logic.
@jinzhongjia
fix(ci): detect test failures by output content, not exit code
f948664 
nvim returns non-zero exit codes when error messages are printed,
even for expected errors in error handling tests. Changed test runner
to check for actual '[31mFail.*||' patterns in output instead.
@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia force-pushed the feat/single-opencode-client branch from 568d1a6 to f948664 Compare January 2, 2026 12:37
@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2026 12:49
@sudo-tee
Copy link
Owner

sudo-tee commented Jan 5, 2026

Thanks for the PR this looks interesting, I will play with it a little bit

@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 5, 2026

If you need to modify code, feel free to contact me!

@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 5, 2026

This repository is great

sudo-tee
sudo-tee reviewed Jan 5, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Owner

@sudo-tee sudo-tee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a really great feature for the plugin, and it looks stable from the tests I did.

I did add some little nitpicking , but otherwise this looks good

@aweis89
Copy link
Contributor

aweis89 commented Jan 6, 2026

Seems like this will also have the benefit of correctly attaching new sessions to the CWD if that changes within the Neovim instance (e.g. using the :cd .. command)

@jinzhongjia
Merge branch 'main' into feat/single-opencode-client
6b83e95
@jinzhongjia
refactor: extract health check logic to api_client
6d835a0 
Move health check logic from OpencodeServer.try_existing_server to a new
static OpencodeApiClient.check_health method using promises.
@jinzhongjia
refactor(server): replace any with OpencodeServer
bf7917e
@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 6, 2026

I have modified the code based on the comment, I think now maybe it is ok?

@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 6, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Seems like this will also have the benefit of correctly attaching new sessions to the CWD if that changes within the Neovim instance (e.g. using the :cd .. command)

Theoretically yes, but I'm wondering if anyone would actually change the CWD with cd command?
Maybe the system management? But as I know, they all use pure vim or neovim without third plugins

@jinzhongjia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jinzhongjia commented Jan 6, 2026

Oh, I found a problem, sometime plugin will create more than one opencode, I will figure out the reason

@jinzhongjia jinzhongjia marked this pull request as draft January 6, 2026 07:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@sudo-tee sudo-tee sudo-tee left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jinzhongjia @sudo-tee @aweis89