27 May
2019
27 May
'19
4:25 p.m.
Hi,
I feel we're over-engineering things a bit, at least for a fist version. My
feeling is that the approach is to go with an UI-first version (the whole
talk about being able to choose "mine" vs "their" versions) and only
then,
at a later point, coming back to a text-based version that allows you to
fix the details. Why not go the other way around, in a simpler and already
familiar (to some at least) yet flexible solution of starting with the
text-based version, since we are editing wiki syntax after all?
IMO, the easiest thing we could do is that, when a save is attempted, a
merge should be attempted first. If no conflict occurs and the merge can be
done automatically, the save should be done on the DB as well and the user
should not perceive anything, thus not affecting his flow.
Note: I hope we are all on the same page when I say that the merge conflict
resolution should target/work on wiki syntax in the UI as well.
If, however, conflicts do occur, the save does not go to the DB. Instead:
* If it was a save&continue, the UI should inform the user (popup/bottom
screen notification) that the save failed because of a conflict and offer
the possibility to keep editing or resolve the conflict
* If it was a save&view (or if the user clicked "resolve conflict" after a
failed save&continue), the UI should reload the (wiki) editor with the
entire merged content that will include the conflicts in a way that is (at
least in the first implementation) similar to how git conflicts are
displayed in a file, i.e. clearly marked in the content (where the conflict
starts and ends), showing your version vs the version that is currently on
the server (in the DB). Example (with html, but imagine wiki syntax here
and we could use something better than "HEAD", etc.):
https://d33v4339jhl8k0.cloudfront.net/docs/assets/55c3b5cae4b01fdb81eb1259/…
An improved version (iteration) of this could then be to use something like
CodeMirror's "merge" addon (since we already use CodeMirror in the syntax
highlighting application). It supports 2-way or 3-way display and live diff
computation between the versions, synchronized scrollbars, and other neat
stuff: https://codemirror.net/demo/merge.html We could decide if in "our"
version we include the user's original version OR if we put directly the
merged version (where the auto-merges are already applied) OR if we have a
button under the user's original version to perform auto-merge on request,
leaving just the remaining conflicts to be handled by the user. Finally,
when save&view is pressed in this mode (note: probably we need to disable
save&continue so that the "conflict resolution" action is
"atomic", i.e.
without leaving the content in an unfinished merge state), whatever the
edited version is will overwrite the DB version of the document (i.e. force
with whatever it contains).
WDYT?
Thanks,
Eduard
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:53 PM Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Simon Urli
<simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
what
Here it was the confusion, since in my mind, I though we were going line by
line. You said that in the first version we won't have this, but ideal
implementation it should go like that (and even at the word / character
level for realtime-editing).
So you'd go with a -1 for this option?
We should add a new configuration only if it's needed. Again, I think we
are introducing a lot of things (parent/child relation, accessibility
options, etc.) that we never test. We don't reach a conclusion by
ourselves, so trying to make everyone happy, we are just increasing the
complexity of selection for the user and for the testers.
>>
>> 3. When a user save with a merge, the notification message displays that
me.
The magnitude I had in mind applied for the line by line case. If you look
at the image
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/EditConflict/linescolo…
, 3 lines were successfully merged, while having conflict on 1 line. So we
were tacking about different things.
> About increasing the notif timeout in
case of Save&View I'm not
> convinced: you're suppose to be immediately redirected to the view page
> in case of Save&View, so making the user wait on a notif doesn't look
> very nice.
The idea was to redirect the user as soon as possible in the View mode,
just display the bottom page notification a bit longer (or add a
notification display for the View step).
Thanks,
Caty
> Simon
> > >>
> >> 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
> diff/conflicts
> >>
> > > This mockup might not help,
but is something I had in mind that I want
to
> > share:
>
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/EditConflict/linescolo…
> > > 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:
properly
see
the
the
without
the
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CollaborativeEditing
work
would
have
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
On 23/05/2019 16:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:
>> So trying to sum up the
discussion to see if we all agree.
>>
>> All the above is in the case of a save conflict:
>>
>> 1. Default behaviour for all users is to try an automatic merge, and
to
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:10 PM Simon Urli
<simon.urli(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
display a window conflict resolution in case of merge
conflict. The
conflict resolution is an all-or-nothing based, allowing to choose a
version over another.
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
line.
Auto-merge the rest.
Apparently I wasn't clear about my "all or nothing" feature. For me it
only concern the resolution of the merge conflicts, but the choice made
apply to ALL conflict of the document. That's what I meant.
2. There is an option in the user profile to be able to always see the
diff in case of save conflict, to accept or not the merge, even when
there's no conflict.
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.
>> it's a merge save. It means that
user clicking on "save&view" might
miss
>> it.
>>
> 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.
How would you quantify this magnitude? The number of versions between
the two saves? What about minor/major versions? It looks a bit fuzzy to 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 >> 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
>> 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 >> 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 >
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 >
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 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”:
> >>>
> >>
>>
>> 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 > 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 >> 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 >> 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
> >>