Definition Diffs: Only emit annotation changes for hash changes #5269
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
ChrisPenner
commented
Aug 9, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These definition diffs are BIG lol.
hojberg
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2024
ChrisPenner
force-pushed
the
cp/restrict-annotation-changes-in-diffs
branch
from
814d4a8
to
c341cc4
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Overview
In a definition diff we tag changes where only the hash changed differently by emitting an annotationChange; but previously we would emit one for ANY annotation changes, even if the annotations were completely unrelated things. This restricts it so we only treat something as an annotation change if it's a hash change.
Implementation notes
When collapsing annotation changes, check that both annotations are hashy syntax elements beforehand.
Interesting/controversial decisions
Nah not really, talked it over with @hojberg
Test coverage
Added a regression test containing one of the examples where this got weird.