Clarify Lamport ordering comment in remote edit - #52037
Merged
Veykril merged 2 commits intoMay 26, 2026
Merged
Conversation
|
We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't have @oinoom on file. You can sign our CLA at https://zed.dev/cla. Once you've signed, post a comment here that says '@cla-bot check'. |
zed-community-bot
Bot
added
the
first contribution
zed-codeowner-coordinator
Bot
requested review from
a team,
Veykril and
dinocosta
and removed request for
a team
March 20, 2026 17:32
Contributor
Author
|
@cla-bot check |
cla-bot
Bot
added
the
cla-signed
|
The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request! |
Veykril
approved these changes
May 26, 2026
Veykril
enabled auto-merge
May 26, 2026 07:38
TomPlanche
pushed a commit
to TomPlanche/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2026
## Context This PR updates a misleading comment in the remote edit merge path in the text CRDT. At `crates/text/src/text.rs`, the code skips fragments when `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`, but the comment described this as "lower lamport timestamp." In this codebase, Lamport ordering is ascending (`value`, then `replica_id`), so `>` means a higher Lamport timestamp. This change is comment-only and does not change runtime behavior. ## How to Review 1. Open `crates/text/src/text.rs` and inspect the updated two-line comment above the `while let Some(fragment) = old_fragments.item()` loop in `apply_remote_edit`. 2. Confirm the condition directly below is unchanged: `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`. 3. (Optional) Cross-check Lamport ordering in `crates/clock/src/clock.rs` (`impl Ord for Lamport`) to confirm the wording. ## Self-Review Checklist - [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) - [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior (comment-only change; no behavior changes) - [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable Release Notes: - N/A Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukas@zed.dev>
This was referenced Jun 3, 2026
jonx
pushed a commit
to jonx/zed-aros
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2026
## Context This PR updates a misleading comment in the remote edit merge path in the text CRDT. At `crates/text/src/text.rs`, the code skips fragments when `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`, but the comment described this as "lower lamport timestamp." In this codebase, Lamport ordering is ascending (`value`, then `replica_id`), so `>` means a higher Lamport timestamp. This change is comment-only and does not change runtime behavior. ## How to Review 1. Open `crates/text/src/text.rs` and inspect the updated two-line comment above the `while let Some(fragment) = old_fragments.item()` loop in `apply_remote_edit`. 2. Confirm the condition directly below is unchanged: `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`. 3. (Optional) Cross-check Lamport ordering in `crates/clock/src/clock.rs` (`impl Ord for Lamport`) to confirm the wording. ## Self-Review Checklist - [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) - [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior (comment-only change; no behavior changes) - [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable Release Notes: - N/A Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukas@zed.dev>
jolutz
pushed a commit
to jolutz/zed
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
## Context This PR updates a misleading comment in the remote edit merge path in the text CRDT. At `crates/text/src/text.rs`, the code skips fragments when `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`, but the comment described this as "lower lamport timestamp." In this codebase, Lamport ordering is ascending (`value`, then `replica_id`), so `>` means a higher Lamport timestamp. This change is comment-only and does not change runtime behavior. ## How to Review 1. Open `crates/text/src/text.rs` and inspect the updated two-line comment above the `while let Some(fragment) = old_fragments.item()` loop in `apply_remote_edit`. 2. Confirm the condition directly below is unchanged: `fragment.timestamp > timestamp`. 3. (Optional) Cross-check Lamport ordering in `crates/clock/src/clock.rs` (`impl Ord for Lamport`) to confirm the wording. ## Self-Review Checklist - [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability - [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments - [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist) - [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior (comment-only change; no behavior changes) - [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable Release Notes: - N/A Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukas@zed.dev>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Context
This PR updates a misleading comment in the remote edit merge path in the text CRDT.
At
crates/text/src/text.rs, the code skips fragments whenfragment.timestamp > timestamp, but the comment described this as "lower lamport timestamp." In this codebase, Lamport ordering is ascending (value, thenreplica_id), so>means a higher Lamport timestamp.This change is comment-only and does not change runtime behavior.
How to Review
crates/text/src/text.rsand inspect the updated two-line comment above thewhile let Some(fragment) = old_fragments.item()loop inapply_remote_edit.fragment.timestamp > timestamp.crates/clock/src/clock.rs(impl Ord for Lamport) to confirm the wording.Self-Review Checklist
Release Notes: