Skip to content

Improve rollback doc to avoid ID duplication #14358

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
TCOTC opened this issue Mar 14, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed

Improve rollback doc to avoid ID duplication #14358

TCOTC opened this issue Mar 14, 2025 · 3 comments
Assignees
@88250
Labels
Enhancement
Milestone
3.1.25

Comments

@TCOTC
Copy link
Contributor

TCOTC commented Mar 14, 2025 •
edited by 88250
Loading

文档回滚会导致块 ID 重复

在回滚文档之后，相对于当前文档新增的这些块的 ID 需要重置。

块 ID 重复会导致异常行为：

video.webm
@TCOTC TCOTC mentioned this issue Mar 14, 2025
Closed
@88250 88250 self-assigned this Mar 15, 2025
@88250
Copy link
Member

88250 commented Mar 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

相对于当前文档新增的这些块的 ID

这个 ID 指的是一开始移动过去那些块的 ID？

我感觉方案应该是：回滚文档 a 时检查 a 中的块是否已经存在，存在的话说明重复了，这时候就重置 a 中重复的块 id

@88250 88250 changed the title 文档回滚会导致块 ID 重复 Improve rollback doc to avoid ID duplication Mar 15, 2025
@TCOTC
Copy link
Contributor Author

TCOTC commented Mar 15, 2025

回滚文档 a 时检查 a 中的块是否已经存在，存在的话说明重复了，这时候就重置 a 中重复的块 id

我的意思跟你差不多，就是不检查直接重置新增的块。

如果“检查 a 中的块是否已经存在”足够可靠的话，可以只重置已经存在的 ID

@88250
Copy link
Member

88250 commented Mar 15, 2025

已关闭笔记本中的检查不了，在索引中的可以检查，先就做到这样吧。

@88250 88250 added this to the 3.1.25 milestone Mar 15, 2025
88250 added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2025
@88250
🎨 Improve rollback doc to avoid ID duplication #14358
d348ad0
88250 added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2025
@88250
🎨 Improve rollback doc to avoid ID duplication #14358
6407791
@88250 88250 closed this as completed Mar 15, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@88250 88250

Labels
Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.1.25
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@88250 @TCOTC