bug#69584: 29.2.50; project-find-functions should have access to maybe-prompt

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 22/03/2024 15:05, Spencer Baugh wrote:

> > Disabling cache altogether with maybe-prompt=t might be a net
> > negative, given that many users' interaction with project.el might be
> > limited to commands that only do such invocations. But perhaps it's
> > the price to pay for flexibility: as long as we're talking about
> > external cache, it will be up to the callers to avoid caching where
> > the results can be non-deterministic, such as after a prompt.
>
> Hm, I'm slightly confused, isn't the problem more general than just the
> transient project?  If I run (project-current t directory), and I get a
> project back, I have no idea whether that project is actually for
> DIRECTORY or not: if DIRECTORY is not in a project at all, the returned
> project is instead some project selected by the user with
> project-prompter.

That's a good point. The assumption was that it *would* be for DIRECTORY 
(some parent, perhaps), but that relation won't necessarily hold.

Then it becomes a question for the cache creator - whether such cached 
entry is useful, and for how long.

> > > So my use case then is this: when a user opens code review FE-123 in
> > > a
> > > buffer, they look at the diff and then decide they want to do something
> > > in a working copy of the code.  Currently, to do that they run one of a
> > > variety of internal commands which duplicate things like
> > > project-find-file, but which are aware of whether or not there's a local
> > > working copy, and operate the local working copy if any, and otherwise
> > > prompt to create a local working copy and then error.
> > > I'd like to replace those internal commands with just normal
> > > project-find-file, and also allow other commands which use
> > > project-current to determine the current project to just work.
> >
> > If you set up a project instance in a buffer-local way, would it even
> > work correctly outside of that buffer?
>
> Hm, I don't see why it wouldn't?  It's not really any different, again,
> from project-prompter returning a project when DIRECTORY isn't a
> project.  I'm intending for these functions to return a totally normal
> vc project, to be clear - the only magic is in initially finding that vc
> project, when default-directory isn't in that vc project.

I mean, it _might not_ work. For example, if the project implementation 
does some additional buffer-local things like storing extra information 
related to the project in buffer-local variables. Which would be a valid 
thing to do for buffer-local projects, but not a particularly great one 
in the general context.

Anyway, that depends on you as the author as well - to avoid such problems.

> > Would project history work fine? When you pick a project from recently
> > visited, you basically just apply its last root directory and expect
> > the project to be "found".
>
> The project-root would be just be the normal directory that the project
> actually is located in, in the filesystem.  And since it would be a
> normal vc project, project-find-functions would return the same project
> instance when run on its root.  So that would work fine too.

Very good.

> > I've read the article (thanks!), but I'm not sure yet of what would be
> > the ergonomic savings in such scenario when instead of having a
> > separate command to check out a branch and visit a file in it (perhaps
> > bound to 'o f' inside the major mode map for the branches list's
> > buffer), you call project-find-file right away. In the former scenario
> > such command would make sure the branch is checked out, so its
> > directory has proper contents, and then it could delegate to
> > project-find-file inside said directory. And later visits (e.g. from
> > project-switch-project) would work fine until the directory is
> > deleted.
>
> Consider project-vc-dir or project-dired.  The default-directory of
> these directories is the project root, so if you want to operate on the
> project, you can do that in these buffers.  And that's convenient and
> good - you can do things like find-file or project-find-file or
> whatever, because these buffers are conceptually "within" the project.
>
> The branch overview is like project-vc-dir, but you can also open it
> when there's no local working copy for a branch.
>
> If there *is* a local working copy, the branch overview has a
> default-directory in the project, so you can treat it like
> project-vc-dir or project-dired.  This is the common case, this works
> great.

I think I get it now, thanks.

> If there isn't a local working copy, the branch overview has a
> default-directory of "/" just because there's no sensible
> default-directory for the buffer.

This detail makes me somewhat uneasy, but ultimately it's up to you to 
test this and related behaviors (any other callers of project-current 
that you use). If the important ones work out fine, then I suppose this 
can be okay.

> And if you open a branch overview and
> you know there's no local working copy, you could run a command to
> create a local working copy and only then start treating it like
> project-vc-dir, running commands which operate on the project.
>
> But, it's convenient to be able to ignore whether a given branch
> overview has a local copy or not.  Indeed, there are heuristics which
> pre-create local copies for branches you are likely to interact with,
> e.g. branches you need to review code for.  So for normal development,
> there will usually be a local working copy before you open the branch
> overview, even without your intervention.  So you can get away with only
> rarely explicitly creating one.
>
> So when you open up a branch overview, you'll usually assume there's a
> local copy, and so your first action will probably some command which
> uses project-current.  But if there's no working copy, then you'll get
> dropped to a prompt to choose a project, instead of (say) a
> project-find-file prompt, which you might not immediately notice, which
> is confusing, and you'll have to C-g out of it, and then run some other
> command to create the working copy.  All that is a hassle.
>
> A few other potential things I could do to solve that confusing
> situation:
>
> - My project-find-function could detect if it's running in a branch
>    overview buffer without a local copy and immediately error, which
>    stops project-current from running, so it can't prompt.
>
> - I could make the branch overview buffer always have a
>    default-directory of the location where the local copy *will* be
>    created, even if it doesn't currently exist.  (All of the local
>    working copies are created as subdirectories of one specific
>    directory.)  Then my project-find-function could look at the
>    default-directory string without touching the filesystem, detect that
>    it's in the directory for projects managed by my package, and return a
>    project instance with a project-root that doesn't actually exist, so
>    then project-find-file will fail when it tries to list files for a
>    nonexistent project.
>
> I'm guessing both of those also have undesirable implications for the
> project-current semantics, though?

In general, I would prefer the latter - as long as your 
project-find-functions element comes first, it should recognize those 
paths okay.

And the vc-aware backend returns nil silently when default-directory is 
non-existent, so the obvious problem shouldn't come up.

Anyway, the patch we settled on is agnostic to this choice, so there is 
no urgency to make this choice or change.

> > If this change will be enough to cover your scenario, let's go ahead
> > and add the 'non-essential' binding. It does seem to make sense for
> > Tramp, at least.
>
> Yes, that completely covers my scenario.  (Putting aside whether my
> scenario is a good idea :) )
>
> So I would be happy with that.

Now pushed to master as commit 1552f8345d8.