Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Merge on save

> On 23 May 2019, at 09:43, Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > On 23/05/2019 09:31, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> On 23 May 2019, at 09:25, Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Caty, >>> >>> On 22/05/2019 14:51, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I agree about this profile option. >>>> Indeed we want to make things as simple as possible and having conflict >>>> resolutions can be scary, still, there is no way an user could take this >>>> decision in advance. >>>> Users will want to have control over what they do and at least know >>>> something went wrong. We cannot automatically merge, without any warning, >>>> since users will immediately see that their work was changed. It will be >>>> reported as a bug (in case they notice it) and they will expect to be able >>>> to recover the work. >>>> I can't think of a case when an user would not care about the changes and >>>> the result. >>> >>> Let say that a document has 2 sections, and a user is editing section 1, while the other is editing section 2. The merge should work properly without any conflict. >>> I don't really see the point of asking by default the second user if he's ok to merge his work on section 1 with what has been saved on section 2. >>> On the contrary I feel it could be scary for the basic users to see this kind of message and it decreases the easiness of using XWiki IMO. >>> >>>> Also the options are not clear to me: like 2: automatically merge, but ask. >>>> Well is automatically or not? >>> >>> It's automatic but as you mentioned just after, in case of changes are made on the same line there is a conflict that needs to be solved. That's what I meant by "ask in case of merge conflict". >>> >>> On the contrary option 1 was a fully automatic merge, with a predefined strategy to choose one version over another in case of conflict. >>> >>>> We need to ask for resolution only if the changes are on the same line, >>>> besides this, we should try to automatically merge, but provide the info to >>>> the user that we did that. Instead of the normal Save message, we could say >>>> that we performed a Merged Save. And in the history I would expect to be >>>> able to see what lines were added by what users, just in case something >>>> went wrong. We are lucky that we have the Blame view :) >>>> So not sure we need a configurable option in profile. We just need to >>>> decide on the 'default' and implement that. We keep adding options that >>>> only increase the complexity of the product and we never get to test all >>>> the possible mixes and configurations. >>>> So what are the use cases when we would need this option in the profile? >>> >>> As I said above I personally don't see the point of always displaying the merge diff especially for basic users when there's no conflict. Now I really think that some users would want that, that's why I proposed the profile option. >> I agree that option 3 is not great as it gets in the way. Now it could be interesting for the user to know it happened. Maybe some fleeting notifications at the bottom of the screen or some info added to the commit message or some visual info when you’re in edit mode and before you press save. > > So in case of "Save&Continue" it's quite easy to change the "Saved" notification message by another one. I'm not quite sure how to inform the user about the merge if he cliks on "Save&View”. By implementing the part below :) ie by providing this info continuously before he clicks any save button. > >> Ideally I’d like that we poll regularly to see if there have been changes and display some icon if there are with the ability for the current user to click and see the diffs with his version, and if there’s a conflict, that a visible message is displayed on the screen (but without interrupting of his typing). More details: when there’s a conflict, clicking the message/button would show the diff and the conflict. >> And when he saves, the merge is done then. > > I like the idea, now would that be enough to inform about the performed merge? If we go in that direction I'd need some design proposal for the UI @Caty :) Yes we need to find where to put that information. BTW, even better, we should ideally also display the icons of the users who are editing the same doc and/or who have saved content after the current user started editing. And we already have a design page for this ;) We called it “collaborative editing”: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CollaborativeEditing Thanks -Vincent > > Simon > >> WDYT? >> Thanks >> -Vincent >>> >>> Simon >>>> Thanks, >>>> Caty >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>>> On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm working on the merge on save for the roadmap of 11.5 and I need some >>>>> decision to be taken. >>>>>> >>>>>> The main idea of the merge on save, is to try to merge users work in >>>>> case of save conflict. Knowing that the merge might led to merge conflict >>>>> in case of edits on the same places. Those merge conflict can be tackled >>>>> automatically, but a priority will be then given to one version over >>>>> another. >>>>>> >>>>>> I first propose to add an option in user profile, so users would have >>>>> the possibility to choose between: >>>>>> 1. Always merge automatically the work, even in case of merge conflict >>>>> >>>>> I don’t understand this part. If there’s a conflict it means it cannot be >>>>> merged… So would it do? Take latest version and overwrite previous version? >>>>> >>>>>> 2. Always merge automatically, but ask what to do in case of merge >>>>> conflict >>>>>> 3. Always ask what to do in case of save conflict >>>>>> >>>>>> Now the question is: what should be the default option? >>>>> >>>>> Certainly not 1! 2 is really the best to me. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> Option 1 looks like a good fit for decreasing the number of clicks to >>>>> do, but I'm a bit afraid that in case of conflict they would have the same >>>>> feeling as before the warning conflict window: i.e. to loose some part of >>>>> their work. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Simon >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Simon Urli >>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >>>>>> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com >>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Simon Urli >>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >>> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com >>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > > -- > Simon Urli > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS > simon.urli(a)xwiki.com > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com