Repository navigation
fix(web): retry failed final file saves after editor close #20738
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
Open
kvnloo
wants to merge
8
commits into
pingdotgg:main
Choose a base branch
from
kvnloo:fix/web-file-save-close-retry-20261016
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+445
−46
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c5ec681
fix(web): retry a failed final file save after closing
kvnloo da6e9d9
fix(web): skip stale close-time retry after a newer draft
kvnloo e62985e
fix(web): bound failed close-save retries with backoff
kvnloo 3cfe94a
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into fix/web-file-save-clo…
juliusmarminge 9cc0c21
Merge remote-tracking branch 'github/main' into takeover-20738
maria-rcks 9702a1b
fix(files): reject stale final-save retries across clients
maria-rcks 4b527ae
fix(web): retain acknowledged contents for final-save retries
maria-rcks aa6670f
fix(server): hold file lease until cancelled writes settle
maria-rcks File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🔎 Supported by static analysis
Script executed:
Repository: pingdotgg/t3code
Length of output: 6494
Treat a retry as successful when the file already holds the attempted contents.
A close-time write can reach the server while its response is lost. The first attempt sends no
expectedContents, so the server applies it unconditionally. The coordinator records a failed save and schedules a close retry. That retry sendsexpectedContentsset to the old baseline. The file now holdsinput.contents, so the server's comparison fails and it returnsconflict: true.The hook treats that response as a conflict.
onConfirmedreturnsfalse, so the draft is not confirmed andpendingstaystruefor a file that already holds the saved contents.Treat an already-applied write as success. The conflict check still rejects real changes made by another client.
♻️ Proposed change
Add a test for a file that already holds
contents. Keep the existing concurrent-write test unchanged.Committable suggestion