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

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:10 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com>

I don't agree about the all-or-nothing, since I would prefer to accept

we can, warn on conflicts. We should show a resolution conflict when the conflict is on the same

Auto-merge the rest.

I don't like the option in the profile. IMO we should decide on the behavior and apply it for all users. Edit is a core feature, conflicts again are part of this kind of interaction.

On "Save&View" we can increase the timeout for the notification. The notification could mention also the magnitude: "Saved. Auto-merged 10 conflicts." If cannot save, show the conflict modal.

> > Those are the first three priority points. The following points are > important too, but might not be finished in 11.5. > > 4. If another user saved a document that I'm editing, I have a > notification in the editor and I can click on it to see the

This mockup might not help, but is something I had in mind that I want to share:

Ideally I would like to see real time, if not the exact changes, but at least the lines affected by the current editor. Thanks, Caty > > 5. The conflict resolution is line-by-line based. > > WDYT? > Simon > > On 23/05/2019 10:00, Vincent Massol wrote: >> >> >>> 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

> 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

> 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

>>>>> >>>>>> 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

>>>>>> decide on the 'default' and implement that. We keep adding options > that >>>>>> only increase the complexity of the product and we never get to

> 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

> the merge diff especially for basic users when there's no conflict.

> 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

> 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

> message or some visual info when you’re in edit mode and before you

> 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

> user about the merge if he cliks on "Save&View”. >> >> By implementing the part below :) ie by providing this info

> 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

> 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

> 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

> merge? If we go in that direction I'd need some design proposal for the

> @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”: >> >

>> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> >>> Simon >>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Caty >>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM Vincent Massol <

> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli &lt;simon.urli(a)xwiki.com&gt;

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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

>>>>>>> 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

> 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 >> > > -- > Simon Urli > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS > simon.urli(a)xwiki.com > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >