bug#63829: 29.0.90; project-find-file's future history breaks with common-parent-directory

[Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>]

Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev> writes:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> Thanks for the ping.
>
> On 06/06/2023 18:55, Spencer Baugh wrote:
>
>>> But so far the patch over there is not complete yet, is it? I wouldn't
>>> say it's a settled matter so far.
>> Yes, I expect there are any number of alternative implementation
>> strategies, I'm not at all tied to using
>> project-current-directory-override.  Happy to port to whatever approach
>> we end up with.
>
> Notes:
>
> - We're still using project-current-directory-override, not migrated
>   to anything else yet.
> - I've pushed my earlier patch which should fix the immediate bug as
>   reported.
>
> Let's talk about yours a little bit more. I'm a little wary of adding
> a specialized feature this way (being able to visit the file
> corresponding to the current one only), but that patch might be the
> most optimal still.
>
>>>> BTW, I asked about this before inhttps://debbugs.gnu.org/58447#127
>>>> and then it was deemed to be not too general to handle, so I backed it out
>>>> inhttps://debbugs.gnu.org/58447#160  with such conclusion:
>>>>     OTOH, `C-x p f M-p' in another project is not my primary
>>>> workflow.
>>>>     But if someone wants to keep a plain history, this could be added
>>>>     later in master, e.g. by a new value of project-read-file-name-function
>>>>     and a function that is mostly a copy of project--read-file-cpd-relative.
>>>> So maybe this could be implemented in master now?
>>>
>>> I think the design there was to use relative file names in history? Or
>>> a different variable for project file name history (which would use
>>> relative names only). I'm not ruling that out, but the patch proposed
>>> here is a little more focused.
>>>
>>> OTOH, it only allows finding the "current" file in the other project,
>>> but not other files that were previously visited too. Spencer, what do
>>> you think about that capability? Do you also feel it is missing and
>>> would like to look into it next? Then the current patch might be the
>>> wrong direction.
>> Hm, the main thing I want is to make it very easy to visit the
>> current
>> file in another project - I am frequently getting user requests for that
>> feature.  (Mainly because our workflow heavily uses a "git worktree"
>> equivalent, where users have one project for each bug/branch they're
>> working on, all with basically the same layout, so "visit the same file
>> in a different project" is also "visit the same file in a different
>> branch", which is often useful.  (I actually might work on some code to
>> help implement the same kind of workflow for Emacs development, one
>> worktree per bug/branch))
>
> I suppose one other way to do that would be to create a dedicated
> command just for that. But that's a little clunkier -- would require a
> separate binding.
>
>> I'm not sure I understand the alternative - the idea would be to share
>> project file name history between all projects?  I guess that could be
>> nice, although I don't personally use file name history that much, and
>> AFAIK it wouldn't solve any concrete user problems, so I'm not really
>> motivated to implement it.
>
> The alternative is a little more general, e.g. propertize every such
> history entry with the value of the root, so that they can be
> post-processed to adapt to any other root directory.
>
> This shouldn't take too much work, actually. But I don't know if that
> is indeed a necessary feature. From the discussion
> (https://debbugs.gnu.org/58447), I had been under impression that it
> would be wanted, but it might be just "nice to have".

I would be happy to do that.  That sounds very cool actually.

Can you elaborate on how exactly you imagine this happening?  I guess,
every time someone enters a filename with project-find-file or
project-find-dir, we would include a propertized version of that
filename in file-name-history?  And then we would re-relativize them and
adapt them to the current project when including them as history?

And also, we'd always prepend the current file as "future history",
propertized in this way?

> Juri, are *you* okay with the functionality in Spencer's patch? No
> need for further generality?
>
>> However, if we did share project file name history in that way, I'd want
>> to still automatically prepend the "current file" as history.  Even if
>> we didn't navigate to the current file via project-find-file, I still
>> want to make it very easy to visit the current file in another project.
>> Just sharing project file name history doesn't provide that.
>
> Fair point.