nix: update flake.lock #2
Open
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
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Flake lock file updates:
• Updated input 'flake-utils':
'github:numtide/flake-utils/ff7b65b44d01cf9ba6a71320833626af21126384' (2023-09-12)
→ 'github:numtide/flake-utils/4022d587cbbfd70fe950c1e2083a02621806a725' (2023-12-04)
• Updated input 'nixpkgs':
'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/808c0d8c53c7ae50f82aca8e7df263225cf235bf' (2023-10-26)
→ 'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/e1fa12d4f6c6fe19ccb59cac54b5b3f25e160870' (2023-12-25)
• Updated input 'rust-overlay':
'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/571fee291b386dd6fe0d125bc20a7c7b3ad042ac' (2023-10-28)
→ 'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/319f57cd2c34348c55970a4bf2b35afe82088681' (2023-12-30)
ilyagr
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2024
For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in jj-vcs#1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in jj-vcs#3109 (comment). The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
ilyagr
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2024
For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in jj-vcs#1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in jj-vcs#3109 (comment). The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
ilyagr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2024
Adds a new "ui.conflict-marker-style" config option. The "diff" option is the default jj-style conflict markers with a snapshot and a series of diffs to apply to the snapshot. New conflict marker style options will be added in later commits. The majority of the changes in this commit are from passing the config option down to the code that materializes the conflicts. Example of "diff" conflict markers: ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 +++++++ Contents of side #1 fn example(word: String) { println!("word is {word}"); %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -fn example(w: String) { +fn example(w: &str) { println!("word is {w}"); >>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends } ```
ilyagr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2024
Adds a new "snapshot" conflict marker style which returns a series of snapshots, similar to Git's "diff3" conflict style. The "snapshot" option uses a subset of the conflict hunk headers as the "diff" option (it just doesn't use "%%%%%%%"), meaning that the two options are trivially compatible with each other (i.e. a file materialized with "snapshot" can be parsed with "diff" and vice versa). Example of "snapshot" conflict markers: ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 +++++++ Contents of side #1 fn example(word: String) { println!("word is {word}"); ------- Contents of base fn example(w: String) { println!("word is {w}"); +++++++ Contents of side #2 fn example(w: &str) { println!("word is {w}"); >>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends } ```
ilyagr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2024
Adds a new "git" conflict marker style option. This option matches Git's "diff3" conflict style, allowing these conflicts to be parsed by some external tools that don't support JJ-style conflicts. If a conflict has more than 2 sides, then it falls back to the similar "snapshot" conflict marker style. The conflict parsing code now supports parsing Git-style conflict markers in addition to the normal JJ-style conflict markers, regardless of the conflict marker style setting. This has the benefit of allowing the user to switch the conflict marker style while they already have conflicts checked out, and their old conflicts will still be parsed correctly. Example of "git" conflict markers: ``` <<<<<<< Side #1 (Conflict 1 of 1) fn example(word: String) { println!("word is {word}"); ||||||| Base fn example(w: String) { println!("word is {w}"); ======= fn example(w: &str) { println!("word is {w}"); >>>>>>> Side #2 (Conflict 1 of 1 ends) } ```
ilyagr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 28, 2024
If a file contains lines which look like conflict markers, then we need to make the real conflict markers longer so that the materialized conflicts can be parsed unambiguously. When parsing the conflict, we require that the conflict markers are at least as long as the materialized conflict markers based on the current tree. This can lead to some unintuitive edge cases which will be solved in the next commit. For instance, if we have a file explaining the differences between Jujutsu's conflict markers and Git's conflict markers, it could produce a conflict with long markers like this: ``` <<<<<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 Jujutsu uses different conflict markers than Git, which just shows the -sides of a conflict without a diff. +sides of a conflict without a diff: + +<<<<<<< +left +||||||| +base +======= +right +>>>>>>> +++++++++++ Contents of side #2 Jujutsu uses different conflict markers than Git: <<<<<<< %%%%%%% -base +left +++++++ right >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends ``` We should support these options for "git" conflict marker style as well, since Git actually does support producing longer conflict markers in some cases through .gitattributes: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitattributes#_conflict_marker_size We may also want to support passing the conflict marker length to merge tools as well in the future, since Git supports a "%L" parameter to pass the conflict marker length to merge drivers: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitattributes#_defining_a_custom_merge_driver
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.
Automated changes by the update-flake-lock GitHub Action.
Running GitHub Actions on this PR
GitHub Actions will not run workflows on pull requests which are opened by a GitHub Action.
To run GitHub Actions workflows on this PR, run: