files - add new option atomic for writeFile and adopt for state (fix #180695)#182270
Closed
bpasero wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
files - add new option atomic for writeFile and adopt for state (fix #180695)#182270bpasero wants to merge 2 commits into
atomic for writeFile and adopt for state (fix #180695)#182270bpasero wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Will continue in a new PR that does what #182974 talks about if possible. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@sandy081 would be happy if you could check if the implementation makes sense
//cc @alexdima this adds the most basic atomic write to the file service (behind an option) which is:
<resource path>.vsctmpin the same foldermovethe file to<resource path>Some notes:
.vsctmpfiles laying around (I think thats ok too, because its never acumulating, its always the same tmp file)[1] we could consider making this a capability and move this into the provider itself to do the
writeandmoveone after the other without going over processes, but I think it does not change the aspects of it much.