On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:25 PM Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com
<mailto:enygma2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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/images/569e7be1c697914361560809/file-AzxXs4HkkG.png
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)
<vali...@gmail.com <mailto:vali...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com
<mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 23/05/2019 16:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:10 PM Simon Urli
<simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>>
> 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
> >> 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
> what
> > 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.
>
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).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> 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
> >> 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 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/linescolor.png
, 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/linescolor.png
> >
> > 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.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23/05/2019 09:31, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>>>>> On 23 May 2019, at 09:25, Simon Urli
<simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@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
> section
> >> 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
> section
> >> 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
> 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 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
> 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 the
> >> 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 without
> >> 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 the
> 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”:
> >>>
> >>
>
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CollaborativeEditing
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> -Vincent
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Simon
> >>>>
> >>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> -Vincent
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Caty
> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM Vincent Massol <
> vinc...@massol.net <mailto:vinc...@massol.net>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli
<simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@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 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
> over
> >>>>>>>> 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
> clicks
> >> 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.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>
> >>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>> simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>
> >>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Simon Urli
> >>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>> simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>
> >>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Simon Urli
> >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >> simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>
> >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.u...@xwiki.com <mailto:simon.u...@xwiki.com>
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
