hokein marked an inline comment as done. hokein added a comment. Thanks for the comments.
In D69263#1716760 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69263#1716760>, @ilya-biryukov wrote: > Another important concern is surfacing errors to the users: silently dropping > ranges for stale files is definitely not the nicest option, I'm afraid this > will lead to non-explainable failure modes and users will be incredibly > unhappy... Agree, I think we should surface this error to users when the index is stale or we don't have enough confident to perform the rename. Thinking more about this -- we have a dynamic index (for all opened files) which is overlaid on a static index (which is a background index in open-source world), so for all affected files, they are either in 1. an open state -- we can rely on the dynamic index, I think it is safe to assume that index always returns up-to-date results; 2. a non-open state -- rely on the background index, however background index has more chance to be stale (especially we don't detect file-change events at the moment), we could do a range patch heuristically to mitigate this stale issue. Failing that, we surface the error to users. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69263/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69263 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
