This is related to #849: in that pull request we avoided *storing*
empty diagnostics, but we'd still report an event when receiving
consecutive empty diagnostics. So if the project diagnostics editor
was open, it could happen that opening a buffer would cause the
language server to report zero diagnostics. We would therefore close
the buffer because there were no diagnostics, but doing so would cause
the LSP to report another event with zero diagnostics. This would repeat
forever, causing Zed to use a lot of CPU and the UI not to refresh properly.
With this commit we will simply avoid emitting a `DiagnosticsUpdated` event
altogether if no diagnostics were present before *and* the LSP is reporting
a `PublishDiagnostics` event with no diagnostics in it.
When opening a buffer, some language servers might start reporting
diagnostics. When closing a buffer, they might report that no diagnostics
are present for that buffer. Previously, we would keep an empty summary entry
which would cause us to open a buffer in the project diagnostics view, only to
drop it because it contained no diagnostics. However, the act of opening it
caused the language server to asynchronously report non-empty diagnostics.
We would therefore handle this as an update, but the previous closing of the
buffer would cause the language server to report empty diagnostics again. This
would cause the project diagnostics view to thrash infinitely between these two
states, pegging the CPU and constantly refreshing the UI.
With this commit we won't maintain empty summary entries for files that contain
no diagnostics, which fixes the above issue.
Co-Authored-By: Nathan Sobo <nathan@zed.dev>
This fixes an error in the randomized test that would cause the future
returned from `Worktree::share` to never finish due to a bug in `postage`
that causes its waker to not be notified upon drop.
Previously, we weren't fully clearing the state associated with projects and worktrees when losing connection. This caused us to not see guest avatars disappear and not be able to re-share upon reconnect.
Co-Authored-By: Antonio Scandurra <me@as-cii.com>
Previously, we tracked the worktree_id and entry_id separately, but now that entry ids are unique across all worktrees this is unnecessary.
Co-Authored-By: Max Brunsfeld <maxbrunsfeld@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Keith Simmons <keith@the-simmons.net>
This allows us to drop the context *after* we ran all futures to
completion and that's crucial otherwise we'll never drop entities
and/or flush effects.
Instead, create an empty worktree on guests when a worktree is first *registered*, then update it via an initial UpdateWorktree message.
This prevents the host from referencing a worktree in definition RPC responses that hasn't yet been observed by the guest. We could have waited until the entire worktree was shared, but this could take a long time, so instead we create an empty one on guests and proceed from there.
We still have randomized test failures as of this commit:
SEED=9519 MAX_PEERS=2 ITERATIONS=10000 OPERATIONS=7 ct -p zed-server test_random_collaboration
Co-Authored-By: Max Brunsfeld <maxbrunsfeld@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Antonio Scandurra <me@as-cii.com>
We don't need this anymore because worktree updates are foreground
messages.
Co-Authored-By: Nathan Sobo <nathan@zed.dev>
Co-Authored-By: Max Brunsfeld <max@zed.dev>
When handling this messages on the host, wait until the desired
version has been observed before performing the save.
Co-Authored-By: Nathan Sobo <nathan@zed.dev>
Specifically, the test now ensures that the host's worktree observes a/file1's
change event *before* the rename occurs, otherwise when interpreting the change
event it will mistakenly think that the file has been deleted (because its path
has changed) and will subsequently fail to detect the rename, causing the test
to fail.
This way, completions are dealt with more consistently with code actions,
and the logic is not spread across so many places. The `language::File`
trait and the multibuffer no longer need to deal with completions. Completions
are no longer generic over an anchor type.
Using a bounded channel may have blocked the collaboration server
from making progress handling RPC traffic.
There's no need to apply backpressure to calling code within the
same process - suspending a task that is attempting to call `send` has
an even greater memory cost than just buffering a protobuf message.
We do still want a bounded channel for incoming messages, so that
we provide backpressure to noisy peers - blocking their writes as opposed
to allowing them to buffer arbitrarily many messages in our server.
Co-Authored-By: Antonio Scandurra <me@as-cii.com>
Co-Authored-By: Nathan Sobo <nathan@zed.dev>
