Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Clarify merge policy semantics in design docs #53

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
tommcd merged 6 commits into from
Nov 25, 2025
Merged

Clarify merge policy semantics in design docs #53

tommcd merged 6 commits into from
Nov 25, 2025

Conversation

@tommcd
Copy link
Owner

@tommcd tommcd commented Nov 23, 2025

Summary

  • simplify the merge API sketch to a single conflict policy parameter and align enumerated options across documents
  • clarify literal guidance by noting planned split strategies and refining the accepted string metadata wording

Testing

  • not run (documentation-only change)

Codex Task

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

gemini-code-assist bot commented Nov 23, 2025

Summary of Changes

Hello @tommcd, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces two new design documents that significantly expand and clarify the future direction of the doctk core API and DSL. The changes focus on establishing robust merge policy semantics, ensuring consistent enumeration of options across documents, and providing detailed plans for features like stable node identities, fragment graphs, and improved tooling integration. The overall goal is to enhance the clarity, consistency, and future extensibility of the doctk architecture.

Highlights

  • Merge Policy Simplification: The merge API sketch is simplified to use a single on_conflict parameter, and the enumerated options for conflict policies are aligned across design documents for consistency.
  • Literal Guidance Clarification: The documentation provides clearer guidance on planned split strategies and refines the wording for accepted string metadata, ensuring consistency and better LSP/CLI validation.
  • New Design Documents: Two new comprehensive design documents (05-split-transclusion-plan.md and 06-core-api-dsl-review.md) have been added, detailing future doctk core improvements, graph-based document composition, and API/DSL review.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist[bot]
gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Nov 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request adds two new design documents that clarify the core API, DSL, and future plans for document composition. The documents are well-structured and detailed. I've found a couple of areas that could be improved for clarity and consistency. There's an inconsistency in the definition of the merge operation between the DSL example and the Python API sketch. I've also noted a minor formatting error that breaks a word across two lines. My detailed comments are below.

docs/design/05-split-transclusion-plan.md Outdated
- Cache resolved fragments and invalidate incrementally on edits.

3. **DSL + API Surface**
- Add DSL operations: `split(by="heading", depth=n)`, `shard(strategy, max_nodes)`, `transclude(id=...)`, `link(from, to, role)`, `hydrate()`, `merge(strategy, on_conflict)`.
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot Nov 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The merge operation in the DSL operations list appears to be inconsistent with the Python API sketch and the PR's goal of simplification. The list shows merge(strategy, on_conflict), but the Python API sketch on line 132 shows merge(on_conflict: ConflictPolicy = "annotate", overlay: Document | None = None). The strategy parameter is not defined in the API sketch, and the list of "merge strategies" on line 50 actually corresponds to the ConflictPolicy values. To improve clarity, could you align the DSL example with the Python API sketch? For example, merge(overlay, on_conflict=...).

Copy link
Owner Author

@tommcd tommcd Nov 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@claude can you fix

Copy link
Owner Author

@tommcd tommcd Nov 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@copilot can you fix

Copy link
Owner Author

@tommcd tommcd Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

✅ Already fixed in commit 1883034 'Align merge DSL operation with Python API signature' - The DSL now shows merge(overlay=..., on_conflict=...) which matches the Python API sketch.

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI commented Nov 23, 2025

@tommcd I've opened a new pull request, #54, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2025
Merged
Copilot AI and others added 3 commits November 23, 2025 20:10
@tommcd
Align merge DSL operation with Python API signature
1883034 
Co-authored-by: tommcd <[email protected]>
@tommcd
Merge pull request #54 from tommcd/copilot/sub-pr-53
81f00ed 
Align merge operation DSL signature with Python API
@tommcd @gemini-code-assist
Update docs/design/05-split-transclusion-plan.md
21932b9 
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@tommcd tommcd merged commit a2539fd into master Nov 25, 2025
3 checks passed
@tommcd tommcd deleted the codex/review-core-api-and-dsl-design-3py9yd branch November 25, 2025 21:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

1 more reviewer

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist[bot] gemini-code-assist[bot] left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

codex

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@tommcd