diff --git a/specs/coauthoring-inline-editor-diff.md b/specs/coauthoring-inline-editor-diff.md deleted file mode 100644 index d45300c..0000000 --- a/specs/coauthoring-inline-editor-diff.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,445 +0,0 @@ ---- -status: graduated ---- -# Solution Design: Inline editable proposed-change diff in the Markdown editor (#64) - -| | | -| --- | --- | -| **Author(s)** | Ben Stull (with Claude) | -| **Reviewers / approvers** | Ben Stull | -| **Status** | `graduated` | -| **Version** | v0.1.1 | -| **Source artifacts** | Feature `benstull/vscode-cowriting-plugin#64` (Inline editable proposed-change diff in the Markdown editor + Accept/Reject controls in both surfaces, `type/feature`, `priority/P2`) · Brainstorming session `vscode-cowriting-plugin-0058` (2026-06-26) · Builds on (all shipped): F4 `#12` (propose/accept seam, INV-9/10/11/13), F6 `#17` (baseline / machine-landing), F7 `#21` (rendered preview, pure render engine INV-22), F10 `#29` (interactive review preview — the **clean-editor** decision INV-32; ✓/✗ accept-reject), F11 `#43` (preview toolbar, `data-src` block→source mapping INV-36), document-edit-flow `#42/#47/#46` (block proposals INV-39/40, accept-all INV-42) · Parent specs (graduated): `coauthoring-propose-accept.md`, `coauthoring-diff-view.md`, `coauthoring-rendered-preview.md`, `coauthoring-interactive-review.md`, `coauthoring-document-edit-flow.md` · Lineage: `ben.stull/rfc-app#48` | - -**Change log** - -| Date | Version | Change | By | -| --- | --- | --- | --- | -| 2026-06-26 | v0.1.1 | Implementation refinement (planning-and-executing session 0059): made the **re-anchor** explicit. Optimistic apply (§3.2) must store the pre-apply text on a new `Proposal.original` field **and** re-fingerprint the proposal's anchor to the *applied* text — F4's `fp.text` is the *original* target, which leaves the buffer once the replacement lands, so `resolve()` would orphan every applied proposal otherwise. `finalizeInPlace`/`revertInPlace`/decorate all key off the re-anchored fp; revert restores `original`. Reload-safety (INV-51/54): a proposal already carrying `original` is never re-captured (the in-memory applied-set is empty after a window reload), so the revert target survives save+reload. Shipped #64 (PR, session 0059). | -| 2026-06-26 | v0.1.0 | Initial draft — brainstorming session 0058. Four forks locked with the operator: **(1) editor model** = *optimistic apply + decorations* — on propose, the editor buffer becomes the would-be-accepted text (insertions real & editable & tinted; deletions shown as struck-red non-editable hints); accept = finalize-in-place, reject = revert. **(2) timing** = *on proposal* (turn complete), not a live token-stream into the editor (that stays in #60's notification/OutputChannel). **(3) editor affordance** = CodeLens `Accept ▾ / Reject ▾` above each block, `▾` → QuickPick (this / all); the webview keeps HTML buttons with the same dropdown. **(4) controls parity** = Accept / Reject / Accept-all / Reject-all reachable from **both** the editor and the webview. Two sub-decisions confirmed: a **dedicated `EditorProposalController`** owns optimistic-apply + decorations + CodeLens (keeps `ProposalController` the pure F4 state/seam owner); **saving while pending persists** the proposed (accepted-result) text. Reverses INV-32 and INV-10; supersedes the ✓/✗ glyph controls. | Ben Stull + Claude | - ---- - -## 1. Business Context - -### 1.1 Executive Summary - -Today, when Claude proposes an edit, the change is shown **only in the rendered -review webview** (`oldnew` with ✓/✗ controls); the Markdown -**editor stays deliberately clean** (F10 / INV-32 — "the preview is the single -review surface"). The writer who lives in the editor sees nothing: to review what -Claude proposed they must open the preview panel, and they cannot *edit* the -proposed text in place — they can only accept or reject it wholesale in the -webview. - -This design brings the proposed change **into the Markdown editor itself**: -editable, with a track-changes diff that matches the webview and the post-accept -result **exactly**. It also replaces the per-proposal `✓`/`✗` glyphs with labelled -**Accept** / **Reject** controls — each carrying a `▾` dropdown for **Accept all** -/ **Reject all** — and makes all four actions reachable from **both** the editor -and the webview. The writer can now read, tweak, and resolve a proposal without -leaving the document. - -### 1.2 Background - -The plugin's review model (graduated specs `coauthoring-propose-accept.md`, -`coauthoring-rendered-preview.md`, `coauthoring-interactive-review.md`): - -- A machine edit becomes an **F4 proposal** — a pending-only record - (`Proposal{ id, anchorId, replacement, granularity }` + a `Fingerprint` anchor - whose `text` is the exact target) that **never mutates the document** (INV-10), - re-resolved against the live text at accept (INV-11) and cleared when - accepted/rejected (INV-13). -- The **render engine** (`trackChangesModel.ts`) is a pure, deterministic, - `vscode`-free unit (INV-22): it diffs at **block** granularity (INV-39), word- - merges prose blocks, and emits webview HTML — `renderReview` (annotated) / - `renderPlain` (clean) — with proposal blocks (`proposalBlockHtml`) carrying the - ✓/✗ buttons and `data-src` offsets for selection mapping (INV-36). -- The **F10 decision (INV-32)** removed *all* in-editor decorations - (`grep` confirms zero `TextEditorDecorationType` / `setDecorations` in the tree) - so the webview is the sole review surface; `ProposalController` carries the note - *"no in-editor UI — INV-32 makes the rendered preview the single review surface."* -- The sealed webview is **intent-only** (INV-35): it posts `{accept|reject| - acceptAll|…}` to the host, which routes to `ProposalController.acceptById` / - `rejectById` / `acceptAllProposals` (#46 / INV-42). Accept **applies** the - replacement via the F4 seam (`applyAgentEdit`), which advances the F6 baseline - (machine-landing, INV-18). - -This feature **deliberately reverses two of those decisions** for the editor -surface, and supersedes the ✓/✗ glyph controls in both surfaces. - -### 1.3 Who feels it & why - -The **human coauthor working in the editor** — the writer who asked Claude to edit -and wants to see, adjust, and resolve the result without context-switching to the -preview panel. The pain: the proposed change is invisible in the place they are -actually writing, and it is not editable at all (only accept/reject-able). P2 -(issue #64): it materially deepens the inner-loop "edit-in-place" experience and -unifies the review controls, but the webview review path already works, so it is -an enhancement rather than a gap. - ---- - -## 2. Product Design - -### 2.1 The experience - -When Claude's turn lands a proposal (or, for a document edit, N block proposals), -the **editor** shows the change as track-changes, in place: - -``` - Accept ▾ Reject ▾ ← CodeLens, above each proposed block - The quick ~~brown~~ red fox jumps over the lazy dog. - └ struck red ┘└ green/blue, editable ┘ -``` - -- **Insertions** are **real, editable buffer text**, tinted by origin - (green = human-origin, blue = LLM) — the writer can click in and edit them like - any other text. -- **Deletions** appear as a **struck-red, non-editable hint** rendered adjacent to - the insertion (a decoration, not buffer text) — visually mirroring the webview's - ``. -- The buffer content **is exactly the would-be-accepted result**, so what the - writer sees (and can edit) is precisely what accepting produces. - -Above each proposed block sit two **CodeLens** actions — **`Accept ▾`** and -**`Reject ▾`**. Clicking opens a small QuickPick: - -``` - Accept ▾ → ┌───────────────────────┐ Reject ▾ → ┌───────────────────────┐ - │ Accept this proposal │ │ Reject this proposal │ - │ Accept ALL proposals │ │ Reject ALL proposals │ - └───────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────┘ -``` - -The **webview** shows the same proposal with the same diff, and its controls are -the parallel HTML buttons — **`Accept ▾`** / **`Reject ▾`** — where the `▾` -reveals *Accept all* / *Reject all*. The legacy ✓/✗ glyphs are **replaced** by -these labelled controls in both surfaces. - -All four actions — **Accept**, **Reject**, **Accept all**, **Reject all** — are -reachable from **either** surface and route to the same controller logic -(INV-53). - -### 2.2 Accept / Reject semantics (editable-in-place) - -- **Accept** finalizes the change *that is already in the buffer*: it records the - span's attribution as landed, advances the F6 baseline (machine-landing), and - clears the proposal. It does **not** re-apply text (the text is already there) — - see §3.3. -- **Reject** reverts that block's region back to the stored original - (`Fingerprint.text`), and clears the proposal. -- **If the writer edited the inserted text before deciding:** **Accept** keeps - their edited text (their keystrokes layer on as human authorship over the - proposed span); **Reject** still reverts the whole block to the original. -- **Accept all / Reject all** operate on the current document's pending proposals, - in descending anchor order, skipping orphans (the #46 / INV-42 shape; **Reject - all is new**). - -### 2.3 Save semantics - -Because the proposed text is *in the buffer*, **saving while a proposal is pending -persists the proposed (accepted-result) text** to disk. The deletion hints are -decorations (never buffer text), so the **saved file is clean** — it contains the -accepted-result text, not yet "finalized" only in the sense of attribution / -baseline. "Pending" therefore means *provisional attribution, baseline not yet -advanced* — **not** "document unchanged" (INV-54). We deliberately **allow** the -save rather than block it or strip on save; once the editor shows the live -document, blocking saves would be the surprising behavior. - -### 2.4 What this is *not* (non-goals) - -- **Not live token-streaming into the editor.** The diff appears when the turn - produces a proposal; watching Claude type into the document is out of scope (the - live token stream is #60's notification + OutputChannel). -- **Not a new review *model*.** F4 proposals, anchoring (INV-11), block - granularity (INV-39/40), accept-all (INV-42) are reused; this adds an editor - *surface* and unifies the controls. -- **Not non-Markdown.** Same Markdown-gated scope as the rest of the review UI. -- **Not intra-diagram mermaid editing.** Atomic fences stay atomic (INV-23); a - mermaid block proposal is editable as its whole fence, not sub-diagram. -- **Not removing the webview.** The rendered preview remains a full review surface; - it gains label/dropdown parity, not a demotion. - -### 2.5 Surfaces considered & rejected - -| Editor approach | Why not | -| --- | --- | -| **Read-only decoration overlay** (doc unchanged; ghost insertions via decoration) | The inserted text would **not be editable** — fails the core "human-editable" requirement. | -| **Inline track-changes markup in the buffer** (`{~~old~~|++new++}`) | Pollutes the file on disk with markup until resolved; complex; conflicts with clean save. | -| **Native `vscode.diff` two-pane** | The two-pane diff was *removed* in #34 (F10) precisely to make one review surface; a separate diff editor is not "in the Markdown file." | - -Chosen: **optimistic apply + decorations** — the only model that yields an -editable diff that is *exactly* the accepted result, in the document itself. - ---- - -## 3. Engineering Design - -### 3.1 Architecture - -``` - ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ - one F4 turn ───▶ │ ProposalController (F4 state/seam owner) │ - (#12 propose) │ propose() · finalizeInPlace() · revertInPlace│ - │ · rejectAll() · onDidChangeProposals │ - └───────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘ - │ proposals (pending records + anchors) - ┌─────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐ - ▼ ▼ - ┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐ - │ EditorProposalController │ shared │ TrackChangesPreview- │ - │ (NEW, vscode host) │ pure diff │ Controller (webview) │ - │ · optimistic buffer write │◀──────────────▶ │ · renderReview HTML │ - │ · insertion tint deco │ trackChangesModel│ · Accept▾/Reject▾ buttons │ - │ · deletion-hint deco │ (diff → plan) │ · dropdown → acceptAll/ │ - │ · CodeLens Accept▾/Reject▾│ │ rejectAll │ - └───────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘ - ▲ ▲ - └──────────── both route actions to ───────────┘ - ProposalController.{finalizeInPlace,revertInPlace, - acceptAll,rejectAll} -``` - -The decisive rule: **one pure diff is the single source of truth** for both -surfaces (INV-49). The editor renders it as *buffer text + decorations + CodeLens*; -the webview renders it as *HTML*. They cannot diverge because they consume the -same hunks. - -### 3.2 Optimistic apply (on propose) — INV-48 - -`propose()` gains a buffer-write step, owned by `EditorProposalController` (so -`ProposalController` stays the pure state owner): - -1. Record the pending proposal(s) + anchor(s) **exactly as today** (the sidecar - record is unchanged: `replacement`, `Fingerprint{text,before,after,lineHint}`, - `granularity`). -2. Write the proposed text into the **live editor buffer**: replace the resolved - anchor span with `replacement` (for a document turn, this makes the buffer - Claude's full proposed document; for a selection turn, the single span). This - write **does not advance the F6 baseline** — the baseline stays at the - pre-proposal text, so the change reads as *pending*, not *landed*. -3. Compute the **decoration plan** from the same per-block word/line diff used by - `acceptBlock` (`wordEditHunks(fp.text, replacement)`): insertion segments → - tinted ranges (buffer coords, offset by the live anchor); deletion segments → - struck-red hint injections (decoration `before`/`after` content) at the segment - boundary. - -Critically, the optimistic write must **not** fire the F4 seam's -`onDidApplyAgentEdit` (which would advance the baseline / register a landed edit). -Optimistic apply is a *distinct* buffer-mutation path from accept; only **accept** -advances the baseline (§3.3). This is the load-bearing distinction that keeps the -change *pending* while *present*. - -### 3.3 Accept = finalize-in-place; Reject = revert-in-place — INV-51 - -Because the proposed text is already in the buffer, the old "accept ⇒ apply via -seam" path would **double-apply**. The accept/reject paths are reworked: - -- **`finalizeInPlace(id)`** — resolve the proposal's anchor against the live text; - record the span's attribution as **landed** (provenance from the proposal's - `author`, word-precise per INV-40 for block granularity); **advance the F6 - baseline** for that region (the machine-landing the seam used to do on apply); - `removeProposal(id)`. No text is re-applied. If the writer edited the inserted - span, the *current* buffer text is what gets finalized (their edits become - layered human authorship). -- **`revertInPlace(id)`** — resolve the proposal's live span; replace it with the - stored original `Fingerprint.text`; `removeProposal(id)`. Reverts the whole - block regardless of any in-place edits. -- **`acceptAll()` / `rejectAll()`** — iterate the current document's pending - proposals in **descending** anchor order (so earlier resolutions don't shift - later offsets), skipping orphans with a tally (INV-42 shape). `acceptAll` reuses - the #46 batch ordering; **`rejectAll` is new** and symmetric. - -Both surfaces (editor CodeLens/QuickPick and webview buttons/dropdown) call these -**same four methods** (INV-53). The webview's existing intent messages are renamed/ -extended (`accept`/`reject`/`acceptAll` + new `rejectAll`) but stay intent-only -(INV-35). - -### 3.4 Single diff source & render-once — INV-49 / INV-50 - -- **INV-49 (single diff source).** The per-proposal diff (block hunks → word/line - edit hunks) is produced by one pure function in `trackChangesModel.ts` (extends - the existing `diffToBlockHunks` / `wordEditHunks`, INV-39/40). The webview HTML - path and the editor decoration-plan path both consume it. Same proposal ⇒ - identical diff in both surfaces (this is the testable parity guarantee). -- **INV-50 (render once).** With optimistic apply, the baseline→buffer delta now - *contains* the proposed change. The renderer must attribute any baseline→buffer - delta that is covered by a **pending proposal** to that proposal (rendered as a - proposal block), and must **not** also render it as an already-landed - machine-diff. Mechanism: the webview render reconciles baseline-diff spans - against pending-proposal anchors; a span covered by a pending proposal is - rendered exactly once, as the proposal. *(This reconciliation is the primary - implementation risk; the implementation plan owns the exact span-mapping, but the - invariant — rendered once — is fixed here.)* - -### 3.5 Editor decorations & CodeLens (the editor surface) - -`EditorProposalController` (new, `vscode` host module) owns: - -- **Two `TextEditorDecorationType`s** — an *insertion tint* (green/blue background, - by provenance) over real buffer ranges, and a *deletion hint* (a - `before`/`after` render-option carrying the struck original text, red, - strikethrough, non-editable). Both are recomputed from the decoration plan on - every `onDidChangeProposals` and on active-editor change. -- **A `CodeLensProvider`** — for each pending proposal whose anchor resolves in the - active document, emit two lenses positioned above the block: `Accept ▾` - (command `cowriting.proposalAcceptMenu` with the proposal id) and `Reject ▾` - (`cowriting.proposalRejectMenu`). Each command opens a `vscode.window - .showQuickPick(["… this proposal","… ALL proposals"])` and dispatches to - `finalizeInPlace`/`acceptAll` or `revertInPlace`/`rejectAll`. -- **Lifecycle wiring** — subscribes to `proposals.onDidChangeProposals` (the same - event the preview uses) and `window.onDidChangeActiveTextEditor`; clears its - decorations + lenses for documents with no pending proposals (so a clean editor - stays clean — INV-32's spirit holds *when there is nothing pending*). - -Deletion hints are **decoration-only** (never buffer text, never saved) and -insertion tints decorate **real** buffer text (INV-52). - -### 3.6 Webview controls (label + dropdown parity) - -`proposalBlockHtml` (`trackChangesModel.ts`) swaps the ✓/✗ glyph buttons for an -**`Accept ▾`** / **`Reject ▾`** control pair. The `▾` opens a small CSS/JS dropdown -in the sealed webview (`preview.ts`/`preview.css`, no network — INV-21) offering -*Accept all* / *Reject all*; selecting posts the corresponding intent -(`acceptAll` / `rejectAll`) or the per-proposal `accept`/`reject`. The host routes -all four to the controller methods of §3.3 (INV-35 preserved). - -### 3.7 Components & files - -| File | Change | -| --- | --- | -| `src/editorProposalController.ts` | **NEW** — optimistic apply, decoration types, deletion-hint injection, `CodeLensProvider`, QuickPick menus; subscribes to `onDidChangeProposals` + active-editor change. | -| `src/proposalController.ts` | Add `finalizeInPlace(id)`, `revertInPlace(id)`, `rejectAll(docKey)`; `propose()` delegates the optimistic buffer write (so the controller stays state-pure); accept/reject routing now finalizes/reverts in place (no seam re-apply). | -| `src/trackChangesModel.ts` | Factor the shared per-proposal diff into one pure producer feeding both surfaces; reconcile pending-proposal spans in `renderReview` (INV-50); swap ✓/✗ → `Accept ▾`/`Reject ▾` in `proposalBlockHtml`. | -| `src/trackChangesPreview.ts` | Route new `rejectAll` intent; keep `accept`/`reject`/`acceptAll`; relabel toolbar/proposal controls. | -| `src/preview.ts` / `preview.css` | Dropdown control for `Accept ▾`/`Reject ▾`; same diff CSS reused. | -| `src/extension.ts` | Register `EditorProposalController`, its CodeLens provider, and the menu commands; wire it alongside `ProposalController`/`TrackChangesPreviewController`. | -| `package.json` | Add `cowriting.rejectAllProposals`, `cowriting.proposalAcceptMenu`, `cowriting.proposalRejectMenu`; CodeLens contribution; markdown-gated `when` clauses. | - -### 3.8 Invariants - -- **INV-48 — Optimistic apply (with re-anchor).** On propose, the proposed text is - written into the live editor buffer (the buffer becomes the would-be-accepted - result); this write does **not** advance the F6 baseline and does **not** fire the - F4 machine-landing seam. Because F4's `fp.text` is the *original* target — which - leaves the buffer once the replacement lands — optimistic apply **stores the - pre-apply text on `Proposal.original` and re-fingerprints the anchor to the applied - text**, so `resolve()` keeps finding the proposal in the mutated buffer; finalize / - revert / decorate all key off the re-anchored fp, and revert restores `original`. - `original` is captured **exactly once** (first apply): a proposal that survives a - save+reload already carries it, so a fresh session never re-captures it from the - already-applied buffer (reload-safety, INV-51/54). **Reverses INV-10** (propose no - longer leaves the document untouched) and **INV-32** (the editor is no longer kept - unconditionally clean — it shows pending proposals). -- **INV-49 — Single diff source.** Editor decorations and webview HTML both derive - from one pure, deterministic per-proposal diff (extends `diffToBlockHunks` / - `wordEditHunks`, INV-22/39/40). The same proposal yields the same diff in both - surfaces. -- **INV-50 — Rendered once.** A span covered by a pending proposal is rendered - exactly once — as that proposal — never additionally as an already-landed - baseline diff. -- **INV-51 — Finalize / revert in place.** Accept finalizes the span already in the - buffer (record attribution, advance baseline, clear proposal) without - re-applying text; Reject reverts the block region to the stored - `Fingerprint.text`. No double-apply. -- **INV-52 — Decoration roles.** Deletion hints are decoration-only (non-editable - `before`/`after` content, never buffer text, never saved); insertion tints - decorate real, editable buffer text. -- **INV-53 — Control parity.** Accept / Reject / Accept-all / Reject-all are - reachable from **both** the editor (CodeLens + QuickPick) and the webview - (buttons + dropdown) and route to the same `ProposalController` methods; the ✓/✗ - glyph controls are superseded by labelled `Accept ▾`/`Reject ▾`. -- **INV-54 — Save persists pending.** Saving while a proposal is pending persists - the proposed (accepted-result) text; "pending" denotes provisional attribution / - un-advanced baseline, not document divergence. (Decorations are not persisted, so - the saved file is clean text.) - -### 3.9 Error & edge handling - -- **Orphaned proposal** (anchor no longer resolves) — no editor decorations/lenses - for it; it still surfaces in the webview at end with a dashed border (INV-34); - accept-all/reject-all skip it with a tally (INV-42). -- **Writer edits the inserted span, then accepts** — current buffer text is - finalized (their edits layer as human authorship); **then rejects** — block - reverts to original regardless. -- **External / concurrent edit shifts geometry** — anchors re-resolve on - `onDidChangeProposals` (existing resolve-or-flag); decoration plan + lenses - recompute. -- **Multiple proposals from one turn** — all optimistically applied (buffer = full - proposed document); each block independently finalizable/revertible; descending - order on accept-all/reject-all keeps offsets valid. -- **Reject of an in-buffer span after partial accept of siblings** — each - proposal's revert uses its own live-resolved span, independent of siblings. -- **Non-authorable document** (read-only / not on disk) — controls disabled exactly - as today (`authorable` gating). - ---- - -## 4. Testing & E2E - -Per the §9 pipeline and `coauthoring-*` precedent (this is a VS Code extension — -**no flotilla/PPE**; the gate is unit + host-E2E green). - -- **Unit (the core):** - - The shared per-proposal diff producer: same hunks → insertion/deletion - segments; parity assertion that the decoration plan and the webview HTML derive - identical add/del spans for the same proposal (INV-49). - - `renderReview` render-once reconciliation: a pending-proposal span is emitted - as a proposal block and **not** as a landed baseline diff (INV-50). - - Decoration-plan computation from `wordEditHunks(fp.text, replacement)`: - insertion ranges in buffer coords; deletion-hint positions (INV-52). -- **Host E2E:** - - Propose (via the injectable `editTurn` stub) → editor shows insertion tint + - deletion hint + `Accept ▾`/`Reject ▾` CodeLens; buffer equals the accepted - result (INV-48). - - Edit the inserted text → **finalizeInPlace** keeps the edited text; baseline - advanced; proposal cleared (INV-51). - - **revertInPlace** restores `Fingerprint.text`; proposal cleared. - - Accept / Reject / Accept-all / Reject-all from **both** the editor command path - and the webview intent path produce the same end state (INV-53); `rejectAll` - clears all pending and reverts all blocks. - - Save while a proposal is pending → file on disk has the proposed text; no - decoration markup in the saved bytes (INV-54). - - Webview/editor parity: same proposal renders the same diff in both (INV-49). -- **Manual smoke:** ask Claude to edit a paragraph; confirm the editor diff is - editable, the deletion hint reads correctly, both surfaces' controls resolve it, - and a clean editor returns once nothing is pending. - ---- - -## 5. Delivery Plan (rollout — not a task list) - -One increment, single design-then-build (#64). Ships through branch → PR → `main`; -no migration and no new persisted sidecar shape (the `Proposal` record is -unchanged). The implementation plan (downstream `wgl-planning-and-executing` -session) owns the Task breakdown; a natural cut: - -1. **Shared diff + render-once** — factor the pure per-proposal diff producer; - reconcile pending spans in `renderReview` (INV-49/50) + unit tests. -2. **Accept/reject rework** — `finalizeInPlace` / `revertInPlace` / `rejectAll` on - `ProposalController` (no seam re-apply); unit tests. -3. **Editor surface** — `EditorProposalController`: optimistic apply, decorations, - deletion hints, CodeLens + QuickPick menus; wire in `extension.ts`. -4. **Control parity** — relabel ✓/✗ → `Accept ▾`/`Reject ▾` + dropdown in the - webview; route `rejectAll`; `package.json` commands/`when`. -5. **Host E2E + manual smoke** across both surfaces. - -Reversible by reverting the PR (restores the clean-editor / ✓-✗ webview behavior). - ---- - -## 6. Open Questions - -- **OQ-1 — Provenance tint exactness.** Insertion tint uses green=human-origin / - blue=LLM by the proposal `author`; whether to additionally word-tint *within* a - block by the F3 attribution of edited-in-place text (vs a single block tint) can - follow the existing F9/F10 coloring; v1 tints the proposed insertion by the - proposal author. *(Not blocking.)* -- **OQ-2 (inherited)** — The F11 design (`#43`) remains un-graduated (lives in code - + an issue draft); unrelated to #64 but noted in the shared lineage. Track - separately. -- **OQ-3 — Editor dropdown fidelity.** The editor uses a QuickPick to stand in for - the webview's true `▾` dropdown (CodeLens cannot render a caret menu inline); if - a more button-like affordance is wanted later, a webview-style overlay is a - possible increment. *(Accepted for v1.)*