Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2772 closed defect (fixed)
Conflict dialog doesn't go away when I delete my map layer
Reported by: | Owned by: | Gubaer | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core | Version: | latest |
Keywords: | Cc: | Gubaer |
Description
Steps to reproduce:
- Load a map area
- Edit
- Download again
- JOSM detects a conflict
- I decide I don't want to deal with some conflict resolution dialog
- Delete the map area
- Download again
- Edit
- Conflict dialog remains showing unresolved conflicts
Attachments (0)
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | new → closed |
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Replying to Gubaer:
This is probably a feature, not a defect. What do you mean with "Delete the map area"? Do you
- select all elements
- press DEL or select the menu item Edit->Delete?
No, I did not delete every object on the map. In that case it would have been expected that the conflict remained. Rather I deleted the map layer itself in the layer selection. Which should reset all conflicts, but didn't.
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
This was there in previous versions also. Deleting all data layers should also remove all remaining conflicts.
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
When you delete all data layers the remaining conflicts are gone too. But if you delete a data layer which was the source for a conflict and switch to another layer then the conflict is still there.
JOSM supports an arbitrary number of data layers with one data set each but one global set of conflicts only. Ouch! somebody will have to spend some time on this.
This is probably a feature, not a defect. What do you mean with "Delete the map area"? Do you
Even for elements deleted in this way there may be unresolved conflicts in the conflict resolution dialog, for instance if your node is deleted but has a lower version number than the node from the server (because another mapper updated the node in the meantime).
It is necessary you resolve these conflict manually because otherwise you would not be able to upload the deleted state of the node to the server where it then becomes "invisible".
There is, however, a slight modification of merge logic in r1699. It should generate less conflicts when downloading from the server into a local dataset with lots of deleted elements.