Skip to content

[JEWEL] IJPL-175720 Improve scrolling sync so it handles identical markdown blocks correctly #2990

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

AlexVanGogen
Copy link
Contributor

I finally did it. After somewhat intensive manual testing, I found that it only works well with Oleg's changes. It means there's a bug somewhere in my current spans update, but I decided not to look for it and just merge this part after the mentioned PR :)

Copy link
Collaborator

@rock3r rock3r left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM; would love for Oleg to also take a look

Copy link
Collaborator

@obask obask left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please check if some parts of these changes could be cleared and add some extra details into docstring and the commit message(even if it will be auto-generated)

…identical markdown blocks correctly

Introduce `LocatableMarkdownBlock` that decorates the regular `MarkdownBlock` with the information about the source lines it spans over. If it so happens that two `MarkdownBlock`s are equal, their decorations are equal only if their source lines are somehow the same, which doesn't make any difference to the synchronizer.
@intellij-monorepo-bot intellij-monorepo-bot force-pushed the alexvangogen/IJPL-175720 branch from a3a836e to 82869a0 Compare May 8, 2025 11:02
@AlexVanGogen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants