# Undo

This document offers a high-level description of the undo system.
It should be updated once more progress is made on the implementation.

## Undo Model and Semantics

There are several different choices for what the semantics of undo could be.
At the same time, there are several different undo-related workflows that consuming applications may want to support.
Understanding those workflows and uncovering what undo semantics would best serve them is still a work in progress,
but two key points have emerged in that space:

1. Undo as a feature is very important in that it is likely to be the only/primary way that end users access document history.
2. While we can offer advanced/powerful undo semantics,
   most applications are likely to adopt a workflow that
   is simple for users to grasp,
   and fits within the confines of their existing user interface.

See
[the brain-dump on inverse changes](../wip/inverse-changes/README.md#undo-semantics)
for some prior thinking on undo semantics.

## Abstract vs. Concrete Undo Messages

Conceptually, an undo edit starts as a very abstract and succinct intention:
"Undo changes from prior change _\<revision-tag\>_".
It ultimately needs to be converted into a concrete description of how the undo changes the current state of the document
(e.g., "delete the node at this path").
The application (typically through Forest) is able to process this concrete form, represented as a delta.

One key design question is:
what form should the undo edit be in when it is sent by the issuing client to the sequencing service?
We can think of this as asking which part of the concretization process should happen on the client that is issuing the undo (i.e., pre broadcast),
and which part should happen on peers upon receiving the undo (i.e, post broadcast).

This choice is subject to many tradeoffs:

-   Access to historical data (original change, [repair data](../repair-data/README.md), [interim changes](#interim-change))
    -   Pre-broadcast computation puts the burden of providing historical data on the issuing client.
    -   Post-broadcast computation puts the burden of providing historical data on all peers
        (which means that this data must be included in summaries).
-   Access to sequencing information for the undone edit
    -   Pre-broadcast computation may occur before the undone edit is sequenced.
    -   Post-broadcast computation will occur after the undone edit is sequenced.
-   Access to sequencing information for the undo edit
    -   Pre-broadcast computation will occur before the undo edit is sequenced.
    -   Post-broadcast computation will occur after the undo edit is sequenced.
-   Computational load
    -   Pre-broadcast computation only consumes computational resources on the issuing client.
    -   Post-broadcast computation consumes computational resources on all peers.

Note that larger summary sizes and larger message sizes both increase the network/server load and make (down)loading documents slower.

Because the above choice has such a performance impact,
we give applications some agency in choosing the tradeoff that works for them.
We accomplish that by introducing the concept of an "undo window".

## The Undo Window

The undo window defines how far back, in terms of the edit history,
peers are expected to retain information about past edits and their associated repair data.
Applications can decide to support an undo window of arbitrary size.
The longer the undo window, the more edits are undone using the post-broadcast approach.
The shorter the undo window, the more edits are undone using the pre-broadcast approach.

For the relevant data to be retained, it must first be obtained.
This happens in two ways:

-   When a peer joins a session, the relevant historical information is included in the summary.\*
-   When a peer receives a new edit from the sequencing service,
    it computes the corresponding repair data and stores it alongside the edit.

\* Technically, the historical data needed for undo could be loaded separately in an effort to reduce startup time.

As older edits fall outside of the undo window, the edit information, including its repair data,
can be deleted from the peer's memory.

When issuing an undo,
a client will therefore proceed differently depending on whether the change to be undone lies within the undo window or not.

## Undo Edits Within The Undo Window

Note that this includes cases where the client issuing the undo is also the issuer of the change to be undone,
and that client has yet to receive the change to be undone back from the sequencing service.
This can happen when a client wants to issue an undo very soon after issuing the change to be undone.
It can also happen whenever a client has been offline for some period of time.

Issuing an undo for a change that falls within the undo window can be done by sending an edit that indicates the `RevisionTag` of the edit to be undone.
Such an undo edit is not a changeset.
The receiving peers will construct a changeset based on it, and apply that changeset to their tip trunk state.

Note that the issuer of an undo may attempt to undo a change that is within the undo window,
send the adequate undo message,
and find out that by the time the undo message was sequenced,
the edit to be undone had fallen out of the undo window.
In such circumstances, the undo fails (all peers ignore it).
The issuer of the undo can either give up on undoing the change,
or try again in the new context (i.e., undoing an edit outside the undo window).

## Undo Edits Outside The Undo Window

In a low-frequency (i.e. non-live) collaboration environment,
the edit to be undone will commonly lie outside of the undo window.

There are several approaches we could consider.
All of them have to contend with the fact that peers may not have access to the relevant historical data necessary to perform the undo.
The approaches listed below all rely on having the issuer of the undo send the relevant data in some form as part of the undo message.
For this to be possible, the issuing client must itself have access to the historical data in question.

### Historical Data on the Issuing Client

We expect users are typically interested in undoing their own edits
or undoing edits that had an impact on their edits.
The historical data necessary for that can be retained on the issuing client by not discarding historical data for edits that fall outside the undo window.
A limit may be imposed on how far back this historical record goes in order to avoid unbounded memory growth,
but the option of storing some of this information on disk is likely to make the limit tolerable.

If this were to prove insufficient
(either because of a need to undo edits before the client joined,
or because of the need to undo edits whose historical data had been dropped due to the limit mentioned above)
it may be possible for the client to request the missing data from a history server.
Note this this would make the undo operation asynchronous for the issuing client.

The presence of a history server also means that the peers could fetch the historical data from it rather than have the issuing client send that data as part of the undo message.
This however has two undesirable properties:

-   It makes the application of the undo asynchronous for all peers.
-   It means the history server will have to serve all clients.
    This may prove to be an unacceptable workload for sessions with many participants.

### Undo Messages for Edits Outside The Undo Window

We now turn to the different ways the historical data on the client can be used to undo edits that lie outside of the undo window.

#### Abstract Undo With Historical Data

In this approach,
the only difference between the message sent when undoing an edit that lies within the undo window
and undoing an edit that lies outside it,
would be that the latter includes additional historical data.

This is the approach we currently intend to implement long term.
(See [V1 Undo](./v1-undo.md) for short-term horizon)

One challenge with this approach is that it could result in attempting to send prohibitively large amounts of historical data.
That's because applying the undo _may_ require historical data not only from the edit to be undone,
but from all edits that occurred after it also.
This could be alleviated by having the issuing client determine which parts of the historical record actually are required
and not sending the parts that are not.

#### Undo as a Regular Changeset

In this approach,
the issuing client computes the net change to the tip state and sends that as a normal changeset.
Such a changeset would be rebased over any concurrent edits as changesets normally are.
Note that this precludes having undo-specific logic for rebasing the change over concurrent edits.

#### Undo as a Special Changeset

This approach is similar to the "Regular Changeset" approach,
with the difference that the undo changeset would receive special rebasing treatment in order to impart the desired undo semantics.
For example, the undo changeset could be [postbased](#postbase) over concurrent edits instead of rebased.

## Partial Undo

Longer term, we may support a more localized undo that only reverts changes within a specific region of the document.
For example, a user may wish to undo all the changes they made to a specific region of the document even though the edit that included those changes also included changes to other regions of the document.
Partial undo would allow such a user to only undo the changes within the region of interest.

This could be achieved by including in the undo message a characterization of the region of the document to be affected by the undo.
This may need to be characterized as a combination of input context regions and output context regions.

## Related

-   [V1 Undo](./v1-undo.md)

## Glossary

### Interim Change

A change that is sequenced after the change to be undone, but before the undo change.
Interim changes may depend on the change being undone.

### Postbase

A variant of rebase.
Postbasing change `a` over change `b`,
where `a` applies to state `s` and produces state `sa`
and `b` applies to state `s` and produces state `sb`,
produces a change `a'` that applies to state `sb` and produces the state `sab`,
which is the same state one would get by applying `rebase(b, a)` to `sa`.
