When there are concurrent operations that want to update the working
copy, it's useful to know which operation was the last to successfully
update the working copy. That can help use decide how to resolve a
mismatch between the repo view's record and the working copy's
record. If we detect such a difference, we can look at the working
copy's operation ID to see if it was updated by an operation before or
after we loaded the repo.
If the working copy's record says that it was updated at operation A
and we have loaded the repo at operation B (after A), we know that the
working copy is stale, so we can automatically update it (or tell the
user to run some command to update it if we think that's more
user-friendly).
Conversely, if we have loaded the repo at operation A and the working
copy's record says that it was updated at operation B, we know that
there was some concurrent operation that updated it. We can then
decide to print a warning telling the user that we skipped updating
because of the conflict. We already have logic for not updating the
working copy if the repo is loaded at an earlier operation, but maybe
we can drop that if we record the operation in the working copy (as
this patch does).
I realized only recently that we can try to parse conflict markers in
files and leave them as conflicted if they haven't changed. If they
have changed and some conflict markers have been removed, we can even
update the conflict with that partial resolution.
This change teaches the working copy to write conflicts to the working
copy. It used to expect that the caller had already updated the tree
by materializing conflicts. With this change, we also start parsing
the conflict markers and leave the conflicts unresolved in the working
copy if the conflict markers remain.
There are some cases that we don't handle yet. For example, we don't
even try to set the executable bit correctly when we write
conflicts. OTOH, we didn't do that even before this change.
We still never actually write conflicts to the working copy (outside
of tests) because we currently materialize conflicts in
`MutRepo::check_out()`. I'll change that next.
I had tried to generate the protobuf code at build time many months
ago, but decided against it because it slowed down the build too
much. I didn't realize there was the
"cargo:rerun-if-changed=<filename>" feature that time. Given that that
exists, it seems like an obvious win to generate the source code at
build time.
I put the generated sources in `$OUT_DIR` (where [1] says they should
be), then include them in the `protos` module by using the `include!`
macro. The biggest problem with that is that I couldn't get IntelliJ
to understand it, even after enabling the experimental features
described in [2].
[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/build-script-examples.html#code-generation
[2] https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust/issues/1908#issuecomment-592773865
2020-12-24 01:05:17 -08:00
Renamed from lib/protos/src/working_copy.proto (Browse further)
