tinymist 0.14.14

[GunniBusch]

---

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

---

• AI was used to generate or assist with generating this PR. Please specify below how you used AI to help you, and what steps you have taken to manually verify the changes.

---

fixes #274592.

failed because the previous test expected an LSP initialize response on stdout, but tinymist 0.14.14 did not emit the expected Content-Length header in CI.

This keeps tinymist probe and replaces the timing-sensitive LSP exchange with a compile test that writes a minimal Typst document and checks that a PDF is produced.

[bevanjkay]

Please explain your changes when opening these kinds of PRs.
Substantial changes to tests should be described adequately.

Was there a significant refactor of the package that requires test refactoring?
Are we removing tests that uncovered genuine regressions?

[GunniBusch]

Please explain your changes when opening these kinds of PRs. Substantial changes to tests should be described adequately.

Was there a significant refactor of the package that requires test refactoring? Are we removing tests that uncovered genuine regressions?

Sorry, have missed this (also missed putting this in draft), as I fall asleep yesterday. I was just testing out how to make the test more robust but still show failures to indicate upstream changes. This means, testing lsp function might not be that stable since it might have too much false positive failes.

Will, update it