On 2022-09-13 04:37, Edward K. Ream wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 5:14:19 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: > >> Being wary of UUIDs should be part of Leo's institutional memory. > > PR #2827 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/2827> adds a > warning to NodeIndices.computeNewIndex: > > def computeNewIndex(self) -> str: > """Return a new gnx.""" > > # Warning! Warning! Warning! > > # Don't even *think* about changing the format of gnxs! > # Doing so could introduce the worst kind of bugs: subtle and rare. > > # See this post: > https://groups.google.com/g/leo-editor/c/Lldywoievn4/m/RUMMzB7fBgAJ > > t_s = self.update() # Updates self.lastTime and self.lastIndex. > gnx = g.toUnicode(f"{self.userId}.{t_s}.{self.lastIndex:d}") > return gnx > > Edward > Having read the discussion on #1348 (thank you for the link), I must strongly disagree with this assessment.
There were two problems involved in that bug: 1) Leo created a spurious vnode when reading an outline. 2) This exposed a timing race due to using timestamp based IDs. Introducing UUIDs was a proposed solution. Sequence numbers were the chosen alternative. Both were reasonable. Using username and timestamp information in your workflow is both fair and reasonable. Blaming UUIDs for a bug caused by improper use of timestamps is neither. This seems to be a hot button for you, so I'll drop the issue. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/4effea75-c9da-896c-a5f1-11efe60bee7a%40runbox.com.
