TheserializeField function will serialize empty string values for string-based enums (likeQuotePreference,JsxAttributeCompletionStyle, andIncludePackageJsonAutoImports) when they have their "Unknown" zero value. This causes these fields to be included in the serialized JSON as empty strings rather than being omitted.

Consider either:

1. Adding a check to returnnil for empty string values in thereflect.String case
2. Adding custom serializers for these types (similar toIncludeInlayParameterNameHints which handles empty strings)

This would prevent empty/zero values from polluting the serialized output.

Do we need some sort ofomitzero?

Eh, not sure. The roundtripping is not perfect because these types were switched away from things like*string for convenience.

Do you think it would be better to just omit these until the code is used?

IIRC this is upcoming, so it would just be churn to remove I think...

What's an example of a path that doesn't need to be skipped?

Yeah, I think this is actually dead code.

Ah, so this was here to roundtrip unstable settings, but it isn't doing that right.

I'm going to rethink unstable settings. Probably just make them explicit.

Okay, so the sort of problem is that we used to allow user prefs from like, anywhere, so you could have a object with say,{ "quotePreference": ... } and that would be read in, which is a validUserPreferences object. But, now over LSP, we are expecting things overtypescript. So it's maybe a question of what non-vscode people do.

And, VS Code calls itquoteStyle, while preferences called itquotePreference, so that's uh, great

I split things apart so that we can both have the raw JS name we used to have, but also the LSP-based preference name.

Do we need some sort ofomitzero?

So is the idea that to get to this, a user can only write the explicit path ortypescript.unstable.quotePreference?

Yeah. Either, you are usingunstable and you were working by spread directly intoUserPreferences in Strada, or you were using the "real" name VS Code had, which takes precedence via the spread.

Arguably, this means we should entirely delete any unstable thing with a real name, though, because VS Code actually entirely overwrote these (by nature ofconfig.get having defaults):https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/f9e3a710d84879d41431e7c17d8a8fe8612dfb26/extensions/typescript-language-features/src/languageFeatures/fileConfigurationManager.ts#L186

So maybe I went overkill and we shouldn't allow both names.

Basically, it's hard to balance "LSP VS Code style settings" with "the old tsserver UserPreferences", defaults, spread, and then maybe even other editors...

So, I don't know what is exactly right.

I think in this case, needing to support all theseunstable settings years later kind of defeats the purpose - but we'll probably need to support newunstable properties again anyway, right? So I'm not against keeping support around for it as a concept, and it is virtually no work for us to keep the current ones going if we want 6.0/7.0 to be smoother.

(So your call but I think this is fine)

Probably I'll just keep this.