day dividers: don't assume a previous item is at the immediate previous position #3273
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
…ious position There could be situations where we have a day divider, then a read marker, then an event. In that case, when looking at the event, if the previous day divider is wrong and needs to be removed, we would assume the "previous item" (= the day divider) was at position i-1, which could be that of the read marker, and we'd remove the read marker instead of the day divider.
It's not worth panic'ing the whole timeline because we removed the wrong item; worst case, users will complain and can send a rageshake that contains all the information that's needed to debug what went wrong.
bnjbvr
force-pushed
the
fix-daydivider-readmarker
branch
from
4bd0858 to
36b55b1
Compare
Hywan
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2024
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3273 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.62% 83.62% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 239 239
Lines 24705 24707 +2
==========================================
Hits 20660 20660
- Misses 4045 4047 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
12 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When removing or replacing a previous item that was a day divider, we assumed it was always at the immediate previous position (i - 1 in the loop). That's not correct, because there could be other items unrelated to the day divider algorithm in between (like a read marker), so it would fail the previous assertion.
The regression test (that fails on current main) shows the required setup:
When seeing the event, we decided to remove the "previous" day divider that was spurious, and assumed it was at position 2, while it was at position 1. The solution is to keep track of the actual index of the previous item, in addition to the previous item itself.
Also, I've lowered the severity of the check, from an assertion to an
tracing::error!statement, so that we can still see it in logs, but it's not preventing the timeline to update. It was a bit harsh to do so.