alt Hacker NewsI just read part 1 as well as part 2, for me it raises an interesting question that wasn't addressed. I correctly guessed the question posed about the result of the conflict, and while it's true that's not the end result I'd probably want, it's also important because it gives me visibility of the other user's change. Both users know exactly what the other did - one deleted everything, the other added a u. If you end up with an empty document, the deleting user doesn't know about the spelling correction that may need to be re-applied elsewhere. Perhaps they just cut and pasted that section elsewhere in the document.
But there's another issue that the author hasn't even considered, and possibly it's the root cause why the prosemirrror (which I'd never heard of before btw) does the thing the author thinks is broken... Say you have a document like "请来 means 'please go'" and independently both the Chinese and English collaborators look at that and realise it's wrong. One changes it to "请走 means 'please go'" and the other changes it to "请来 means 'please come'". Those changes are in different spans, and so a merge would blindly accept both resulting in "请走 means 'please come'" which is entirely different from the original, but just as incorrect. Depending on how much other interaction the authors have, this could end up in a back and forth of both repeatedly changing it so the merged document always ended up incorrect, even though individually both authors had made valid corrections.
That example seems a bit hypothetical, but I've experienced the same thing in software development where two BAs had created slightly incompatible documents stating how some functionality should work. One QA guy kept raising bugs saying "the spec says it should do X", the dev would check the cited spec and change the code to match the spec. Weeks later, a different QA guy with a different spec would raise a bug saying "why is this doing X? The spec says it should do Y", a different dev read the cited spec, and changed the code. In this case, the functionality flip-flopped about 10 times over the course of a year and it was only a random conversation one day where one of them complained about a bug they'd fixed many times and the other guy said "hey, that bug sounds familiar" and they realised they were the two who'd been changing the code back and forth.
This whole topic is interesting to me, because I'm essentially solving the same problem in a different context. I've used CRDT so far, but only for somewhat limited state where conflicts can be resolved. I'm now moving to a note-editing section of the app, and while there is only one primary author, their state might be on multiple devices and because offline is important to me, they might not always be in sync. I think I'm probably going to end up highlighting conflicts, I'm not sure. I might end up just re-implementing something akin to Quill's system of inserts / deletes.
I see someone has downvoted my actually relevant post. Not sure why, but anyway.
I also tried out the behaviour of their example. Slowing the sync time down to 3 seconds, and then typing "Why not" and then waiting for it to sync before adding " do this?" on client A and " joke?" on client B. The result was "Why not do this? joke?" when I'd have hoped that this would have been flagged as a conflict. Similarly, starting with "Why not?" and adding both " do this" and " joke" in the different clients produced "Why not do this joke?" even though to me, that should have been a conflict - both were inserting different content between "t" and "?".
Finally, changing "do" to "say" in client A and THEN changing "do" to "read" in client B before it updated, actually resulted in a conflict in the log window and the resultant merge was "Why not rayead this joke?" Clearly this merge strategy isn't that great here, as it doesn't seem to be renumbering the version numbers based on the losing side (or I've misunderstood what they're actually doing).