Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:55 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:29 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > 14.
> > > > > 99. General - ordering of conflict_resolver
> > > > >
> > > > > nit - ditto. Let's name these in alphabetical order. IMO it makes more
> > > > > sense than the current random ordering.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I feel ordering of resolvers should be same as that of conflict
> > > > types, i.e. resolvers of insert variants first, then update variants,
> > > > then delete variants. But would like to know what others think on
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Resolvers in v14 were documented in this random order:
> > > error
> > > skip
> > > apply_remote
> > > keep_local
> > > apply_or_skip
> > > apply_or_error
> > >
> >
> > Yes, these should be changed.
> >
> > > Some of these are resolvers for different conflicts. How can you order
> > > these as "resolvers for insert" followed by "resolvers for update"
> > > followed by "resolvers for delete" without it all still appearing in
> > > random order?
> >
> > I was thinking of ordering them like this:
> >
> > apply_remote: applicable to insert_exists, update_exists,
> > update_origin_differ, delete_origin_differ
> > keep_local: applicable to insert_exists,
> > update_exists, update_origin_differ, delete_origin_differ
> > apply_or_skip: applicable to update_missing
> > apply_or_error : applicable to update_missing
> > skip: applicable to update_missing and
> > delete_missing
> > error: applicable to all.
> >
> > i.e. in order of how they are applicable to conflict_types starting
> > from insert_exists till delete_origin_differ (i.e. reading
> > ConflictTypeResolverMap, from left to right and then top to bottom).
> > Except I have kept 'error' at the end instead of keeping it after
> > 'keep_local' as the former makes more sense there.
> >
>
> This proves my point because, without your complicated explanation to
> accompany it, the final order (below) just looks random to me:
> apply_remote
> keep_local
> apply_or_skip
> apply_or_error
> skip
> error
>
> Unless there is some compelling reason to do it differently, I still
> prefer A-Z (the KISS principle).
>

The "applicable to conflict_types" against each resolver (which will
be mentioned in doc too) is a pretty good reason in itself to keep the
resolvers in the suggested order. To me, it seems more logical than
placing 'apply_or_error' which only applies to the 'update_missing'
conflict_type at the top, while 'error,' which applies to all
conflict_types, placed in the middle. But I understand that
preferences may vary, so I'll leave this to the discretion of others.

thanks
Shveta