Skip to content
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

Merge 1.93 from upstream #4655

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024
Merged

Merge 1.93 from upstream #4655

merged 20 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024

Conversation

jmcphers
Copy link
Collaborator

@jmcphers jmcphers commented Sep 12, 2024

This change includes two large payloads:

  • All the changes from Code OSS 1.92.0 -> 1.93.0
  • All of the Posit Workbench modifications from their fork of VS Code

A lot of hand-editing needed to happen here since our compressed history means we have no common baseline to use for a commit-based merge. The methodology used was roughly:

  1. Merge 1.93.0 into vscode-server and test against Workbench; make fixes/tweaks as needed
  2. Merge 1.93.0 into Positron (using our usual merge strategy)
  3. Copy all the code files (which now have a common 1.93.0 baseline) from vscode-server => Positron
  4. Go through the git view for each one and reconcile the Positron and PWB change hunks, discarding the edits that dropped Positron blocks, staging the edits that added PWB blocks, and manually resolving the dozen or so places where we both edited the same logic
  5. Commit and continue typical upstream merge process

This was a one-shot merge process that won't need to be repeated since next time we will have a common baseline (a tag from vscode-server representing what we merged last time).

Nothing too crazy in here. One of the more annoying parts was getting the rstudio.rstudio-workbench built-in extension set up so that it gets bundled for the reh-web build but ignored in other contexts.

QA Notes

This contains a lot of churn introduced from two different sources, so some testing is indicated pre-merge. Here are some binaries you can test:

https://github.com/posit-dev/positron-builds/actions/runs/10821973170

}
});
// --- End Positron ---

Copy link
Contributor

@wesm wesm Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Deleted by accident?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shoot, thanks for catching that! I put it back.

@jmcphers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This change introduced a surprising number of test failures that I still need to work through before merge. Right now the positron-r tests are failing because the test process is literally exiting in the middle of the test for no apparent reason.

[main 2024-09-12T21:00:20.713Z] [UtilityProcessWorker]: terminated unexpectedly with code 1863645568, signal: unknown

"@xterm/xterm": "5.6.0-beta.51",
"he": "^1.2.0",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We lost he! Can we please bring he back? We'll need to yarn so the reh-web package.json can re-inherit he as well

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done!

Comment on lines 17 to 18
"@xterm/xterm": "5.6.0-beta.52",
"@xterm/xterm": "5.6.0-beta.51",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just noticed we have a duplicate entry here for "@xterm/xterm". Based on remote/package.json, I think we want the .52 one!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed in 0ebafbf!

"@xterm/xterm": "5.6.0-beta.51",
"he": "^1.2.0",
"he": "^1.2.0",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks like the indentation changed from tabs to spaces on this line

Suggested change
"he": "^1.2.0",
"he": "^1.2.0",

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed in 0ebafbf!

sharon-wang
sharon-wang previously approved these changes Sep 17, 2024
Copy link
Member

@sharon-wang sharon-wang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

I've been running a build based on this branch in Workbench and in Server+Web and Desktop locally with no obvious issues with the typical IDE functionality

@jmcphers jmcphers merged commit 91be0db into main Sep 18, 2024
23 checks passed
@jmcphers jmcphers deleted the merge/1.93.0 branch September 18, 2024 21:41
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 18, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants