Fix applyDelta with block embed #3777
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
luin
commented
May 20, 2023
| let attributes = op.attributes || {}; | ||
| let addedNewline = false; | ||
| let isImplicitNewlinePrepended = false; | ||
| let isImplicitNewlineAppended = false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note: renamed from addedNewline
c66c2f8 to
942463a
Compare
jhchen
approved these changes
May 31, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #3620
There are two cases where an implicit newline char (
\n) could be added:\n) or right before a block embed, an implicit\nwill be appended to that op.\n, an implicit\nwill be prepended to the op.Before this PR, we only tracked the first case with a flag
addedNewline. When it's true, we increase the index by 1 and record it indeleteDeltato delete it. The reason we want to delete it instead of skipping it is that a following op may contain a\n, which makes the implicit\nredundant.However, we didn't catch the second case which led to #3620. This PR added another flag
isImplicitNewlinePrependedfor that case. Instead of deleting the implicit\n, we will just skip it because we know for sure the implicit\nis needed.