Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge editor is always dirty #151040

Closed
mjbvz opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

Merge editor is always dirty #151040

mjbvz opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
merge-editor merge-editor-workbench under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach
Milestone

Comments

@mjbvz
Copy link
Collaborator

mjbvz commented Jun 1, 2022

Testing #150389

  1. Open merge editor

Bug
For me, the merge editor tab is always dirty

Screen Shot 2022-06-01 at 2 55 51 PM

From the test plan item description, I believe it should only become dirty when you edit the result

@hediet
Copy link
Member

hediet commented Jun 2, 2022

This is dirty, as conflict-markers are removed automatically. You can undo that.

@hediet hediet added the *as-designed Described behavior is as designed label Jun 2, 2022
@vscodenpa
Copy link

The described behavior is how it is expected to work. If you disagree, please explain what is expected and what is not in more detail. See also our issue reporting guidelines.

Happy Coding!

@mjbvz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mjbvz commented Jun 2, 2022

I think this was also fixed in the latest insiders too. Opening the file no longer shows it as dirty for me

Actually still happening, I just had saved the the file without markers at some point

Potentially also mentioned in: #151033 (comment)

The main thing I run into is that because the editor is dirty, closing it triggers a modal that asks me to save the file. I often am just peeking at the conflicts so don't want to save anything yet

@hediet hediet added under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach merge-editor and removed *as-designed Described behavior is as designed labels Jun 2, 2022
@hediet hediet added this to the June 2022 milestone Jun 2, 2022
@hediet hediet reopened this Jun 2, 2022
@bpasero
Copy link
Member

bpasero commented Jun 3, 2022

👍 , same feelings. Instead of removing the merge markers, maybe we can hide them in some clever way so that they are not in the way when accepting one of the changes.

jrieken added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2022
…flicts

* auto save -> only inform about not resolved all conflicts yet
* manual save -> inform but also enable to discard

related to #151040 (comment)
@jrieken jrieken modified the milestones: June 2022, July 2022 Jun 27, 2022
@jrieken
Copy link
Member

jrieken commented Jun 27, 2022

The main thing I run into is that because the editor is dirty, closing it triggers a modal that asks me to save the file. I often am just peeking at the conflicts so don't want to save anything yet

With #153341 we are improving that a little bit when auto-save: off - you'll see an option to discard changes (don't save). Tho, for auto-save: on it isn't better, there is a discussion to disable auto-save for "under merge" models

jrieken added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2022
…flicts (#153341)

* auto save -> only inform about not resolved all conflicts yet
* manual save -> inform but also enable to discard

related to #151040 (comment)
@jrieken
Copy link
Member

jrieken commented Jul 1, 2022

See #152841 (comment) - there will be an option to discard merge changes, basically restoring the initial state with the merge markers. Closing this issue as mostly duplicated by #152841

@jrieken jrieken closed this as completed Jul 1, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 15, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
merge-editor merge-editor-workbench under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants