Bugfix/gc amends for block elements and revisions #14995
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
brandonkelly
deleted the
bugfix/gc-amends-for-block-elements-and-revisions
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Following a chat with Tommy, it turns out that v4 was also susceptible to block elements that are part of a revision being deleted with the garbage collection. This affected Matrix, Neo, and Super Table blocks.
This fix has two parts: the first commit ensures we don’t delete blocks that any soft-deleted block elements that are part of a revision are truly skipped. The second commit handles deleting structures in a way where we first check if the elements that are part of that structure are not part of a revision. This ensures the neo blocks that are part of a revision don’t get deleted via garbage collection.
The 2nd and 3rd commits can be merged into v5 too. Please LMK if a separate PR should be raised for v5.
Related issues