Previously, the protocol used a mix of strings and bytes without any consistency.
When we go to multiple platforms, we won't be able to mix encodings of paths anyway.
We don't know this is the right approach, but it at least makes things consistent
and easy to read in the database, on the wire, etc. Really, we should be using entry
ids etc to refer to entries on the wire anyway, but there's a chance this is the
wrong decision.
Co-Authored-By: Nathan Sobo <nathan@zed.dev>
Previously, we would use `Project::serialize_buffer_for_peer` and
`Project::deserialize_buffer` respectively in the host and in the
guest to create a new buffer or just send its ID if the host thought
the buffer had already been sent.
These methods would be called as part of other methods, such as
`Project::open_buffer_by_id` or `Project::open_buffer_for_symbol`.
However, if any of the tasks driving the futures that eventually
called `Project::deserialize_buffer` were dropped after the host
responded with the buffer state but (crucially) before the guest
deserialized it and registered it, there could be a situation where
the host thought the guest had the buffer (thus sending them just the
buffer id) and the guest would wait indefinitely.
Given how crucial this interaction is, this commit switches to creating
remote buffers for peers out of band. The host will push buffers to guests,
who will always refer to buffers via IDs and wait for the host to send them,
as opposed to including the buffer's payload as part of some other operation.
As part of #1405, we changed the way we performed undo and redo to
support combining transactions that were not temporally adjacent for
IME purposes.
We introduced a bug with that release that caused divergence
when performing undo: the bug was caused by only changing the visibility
of fragments whose insertion id was contained in the undo operation. However,
an undo operation also affects deletions which we were mistakenly not
considering. Randomized tests caught this but I guess we didn't run enough
of them.
