# Objective
Add remote (SSH) and collaboration support for trashing and restoring
files in the project panel, which in turn enables undo/redo of trash
operations against remote and collab projects.
Relates to #5039.
## Solution
- Updated the project panel undo system to carry `TrashId` instead of
`TrashedEntry`.
- Using `TrashedEntry` could get hairy, as it includes paths, which
wouldn't play too nicely when using, for exapmle, macOS as the client
and Windows as the host. Using a simple identifier is much easier in
this regard and simplifies implementation.
- Enabled the Trash action and context-menu entry on remote projects,
and removed the command palette filter in `ProjectPanel::new` that was
still hiding the action on remote.
- As far as I can tell, there isn't a reliable way to detect whether a
given remote actually supports the OS trash, so we expose the action
everywhere rather than guessing. On a remote without trash support the
action will fail when invoked but this is a conscious tradeoff until we
find a better way to handle this.
- `fs` now tracks trashed files in a `SlotMap<TrashId, TrashedEntry>` on
each `Fs` implementation. Trashed files are referenced by an opaque
`TrashId` instead of passing a `TrashedEntry` around, which avoids
serializing filesystem paths in remote messages.
- Split the old `delete_entry(trash: bool)` API into distinct
`trash_entry`/`trash_file` (returning a `TrashId`) and
`delete_entry`/`delete_file` across `Project`, `Worktree`,
`LocalWorktree` and `RemoteWorktree`.
- This lets us drop the optional trash result (`Option<TrashedEntry>`)
from the delete path and require a `TrashId` from the trash path.
- Added new proto messages (`TrashProjectEntry`,
`TrashProjectEntryResponse`, `RestoreProjectEntry`,
`RestoreProjectEntryResponse`) to let clients request the host to trash
or restore entries.
- This deprecates `DeleteProjectEntry::use_trash`, but the host still
honors it. An older collab peer may request trashing via that flag
instead of the newer `TrashProjectEntry`. If the host ignored it, a
newer host would permanently delete a file the user meant to send to the
trash. The field will be removed in a later PR once all supported peers
use `TrashProjectEntry`.
## Testing
The following tests were introduced to ensure the new behavior is
correctly tested:
* `remote_server::remote_editing_tests::test_remote_trash_restore` –
Tests trashing a project entry in remote
*
`remote_server::remote_editing_tests::test_remote_delete_project_entry_with_trash`
– Test to ensure we continue respecting `DeleteProjectEntry::use_trash`
until it is fully removed
* `project_panel::tests::undo::trash_directory_undo_redo` – Not related
to these changes but a nice to have as we were missing a test ensuring
that trashing and then undoing and redoing it for a directory works as
expected
Besides these, the following scenarios were manually tested against a
remote session on the same machine (macOS):
- Trashing → Undo (Restore) → Redo (Trashing)
- Batch Trashing → Undo (Batch Restore) → Redo (Batch Trashing)
- Rename → Undo (Rename) → Redo (Rename)
- Move → Undo (Move) → Redo (Move)
- Batch Move → Undo (Batch Move) → Redo (Batch Move)
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [ ] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Release Notes:
- N/A
---------
Co-authored-by: Yara <git@yara.blue>
# Objective
Closes EP-89
- Replace ambiguous `Other` edit prediction telemetry for known editor
lifecycle events.
## Solution
- Classify editor creation, provider changes, user information changes,
Vim mode changes, and settings changes through the existing trigger
pipeline.
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
---
Release Notes:
- N/A
This is necessary to remove some `util` dependencies from crates, as
well as better sharing for our projects. This also includes the WIP
AbsPath abstraction as well as some bug fixes from internal tooling.
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
# Objective
Closes EP-202
Prevent V4 edit predictions from leaking `<|user_cursor|>` markers into
users' buffers.
## Solution
- Strip cursor marker text from emitted prediction edits, including when
`text_diff` splits the marker across edit fragments.
- Preserve literal marker-like text that already exists in the buffer.
## Testing
- `cargo test -p edit_prediction prediction_edits_for_single_file_diff
-- --nocapture`
- `cargo test -p edit_prediction --lib`
- `cargo fmt --check`
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
---
Release Notes:
- N/A
# Objective
- Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses.
- If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as
[described in the GitHub
docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword).
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
# Objective
Part of EP-10
Closes EP-118
- Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses.
- If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as
[described in the GitHub
docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword).
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Co-authored-by: Nbarry <nbarry@zed.dev>
# Objective
Closes EP-78
- Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses.
- If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as
[described in the GitHub
docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword).
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
# Objective
Closes EP-9
- Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses.
- If you're fixing a specific issue, use "Fixes #X" for each issue as
[described in the GitHub
docs](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword).
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
---------
Co-authored-by: Oleksiy Syvokon <oleksiy.syvokon@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Oleksiy Syvokon <oleksiy@zed.dev>
# Objective
Fix OpenAI-compatible reasoning/thinking support. Previously,
`OpenAiCompatibleLanguageModel` never reported thinking support, so
configured `reasoning_effort` values did not reliably reach the wire and
Responses API reasoning state could miss `include:
["reasoning.encrypted_content"]`.
Fixes#58289
Addresses #59207 for OpenAI-compatible Responses models configured with
`reasoning_effort`.
## Solution
- Treat a non-`none` configured `reasoning_effort` as OpenAI-compatible
thinking support.
- Expose common OpenAI-style effort levels in the agent UI, using the
configured effort as the default.
- Honor selected reasoning effort for OpenAI-compatible chat-completions
requests.
- Send `reasoning_effort: "none"` when thinking is disabled for a
configured reasoning model.
- Preserve native OpenAI behavior by continuing to use native
model-specific supported efforts and `max_completion_tokens`.
- Add an OpenAI-compatible `max_tokens_parameter` capability for
endpoints that expect output limits as `max_tokens`.
- Parse common streamed thinking fields (`reasoning` and
`reasoning_content`).
- Add provider setup UI and docs for configuring OpenAI-compatible
reasoning models.
## Testing
- `cargo fmt -p language_model_core -p agent_ui -p language_models`
- `cargo test -p language_models provider::open_ai_compatible::tests
--lib`
- `cargo test -p language_models provider::open_ai::tests --lib`
- `cargo test -p open_ai completion::tests --lib`
- `cargo test -p agent_ui
agent_configuration::add_llm_provider_modal::tests --lib`
- `git --no-pager diff --check`
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
---
Release Notes:
- Improved OpenAI-compatible provider setup for reasoning models.
---------
Co-authored-by: Anant Goel <anant@zed.dev>
# Objective
- Simplify edit prediction jumps enough to re-enable the staff flag.
- Defer diagnostic-triggered jump refreshes until we know we need them.
## Solution
- Remove the diagnostic refresh trigger path and its supporting state.
- Keep jumps driven by ordinary prediction requests only.
## Testing
- Not run.
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
---
Release Notes:
- N/A
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
# Objective
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
# Objective
Prevent unbounded ep request sizes
## Solution
Use same token limiting logic used for snippets, on diagnostic messages
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content adheres to Zed's UI standards
([UX/UI](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
and
[icon](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/icons/README.md)
guidelines)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
## Showcase
> This section is optional. If this PR does not include a visual change
or does not add a new user-facing feature, you can delete this section.
- Help others understand the result of this PR by showcasing your
awesome work!
- If this PR includes a visual change, consider adding a screenshot,
GIF, or video
- A before/after comparison is very useful for changes to existing
features!
While a showcase should aim to be brief and digestible, you can use a
toggleable section to save space on longer showcases:
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
My super cool demos here
</details>
---
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
This PR makes it so we always pass up an organization ID when creating
an LLM token.
We should have an organization ID in all cases.
Release Notes:
- N/A
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
This migrates the `Workspace::show_error` method to take a generic type
that implements `WorkspaceError` instead. That trait containts methods
to show a proper error message but most importantly means to help with
providing actions given certain errors.
The intention for this is rather easy: Whenever we show an error to the
user on the workspace level, that error should be
- actionable to a degree, even if that is only opening logs or whatnot
- show a message that is understandable to the user
- for not-too-critical errors, should hide after a certain delay and not
force the user to dismiss it using their mouse.
For now, there exist trait implementations for string error types and
anyhow errors. The long term goal here is to get rid of these altogether
and migrate everything to be strongly typed and especially actionable
instead.
Self-Review Checklist:
- [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [ ] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [X] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Release Notes:
- N/A
---------
Co-authored-by: Kirill Bulatov <kirill@zed.dev>
Co-authored-by: Ben Brandt <benjamin.j.brandt@gmail.com>
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
---------
Co-authored-by: Oleksiy <oleksiy@zed.dev>
Pause edit prediction requests for 10 seconds after receiving a 408
timeout response. This should help Cloud to recover from spikes.
Release Notes:
- N/A
This change adds metrics for evaluating editable context collectors and
the collectors themselves:
- `cursor excerpt`: small area around the cursor.
- `current-file`: the full file that contains the cursor.
- `edit-history`: excerpts around edit history edits.
- `edit-history-file`: full files referenced by the edit history.
- `git-log`: files related to the cursor file according to recent git
co-change history.
- `oracle-file`: full files referenced by the expected patches. This is
an oracle/evaluation-only source because it uses the target patch.
Individual collectors can be enabled by passing a comma-separated list
like this: `ep context --type=edit-history,current-file`. There's also a
preset, `--type=editable`, which will enable all collectors except
oracle.
This change also adds the
`.prompt_input.related_files[0].excerpts[0].context_source` field.
Editable context is only accessible via ep-cli for now.
Release Notes:
- N/A
---------
Co-authored-by: Eric Holk <eric@zed.dev>
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes#57962
## What
When a user is not signed in to their Zed account, the edit prediction
system was still attempting a cloud API request on every keystroke. The
request would fail deep in the credential check
(`CloudApiClient::build_request`) with a `ClientApiError::NotSignedIn`
error, which propagated back up and was logged at `ERROR` level via
`.log_err()` at line 2389 of `edit_prediction.rs`.
## Why
The sign-in check was happening too late — only discovered after async
tasks were already spawned and the full request pipeline entered. This
fix gates the request at the top of `request_prediction_internal`,
returning `Task::ready(Ok(None))` immediately before any inputs are
built or tasks spawned.
The guard mirrors the existing `is_cloud` provider check already used
elsewhere in the same file, and only applies to the `Zeta` model on the
cloud provider path. Local providers (Ollama, `OpenAiCompatibleApi`) and
other models (Mercury, Fim) are unaffected.
Note: I haven't added a test for this — testing the early-return would
require mocking auth state, which I wasn't sure was worth the complexity
for a one-liner guard. Happy to add one if preferred.
Release Notes:
- Fixed noisy `not signed in` error log on every keystroke when not
signed in to Zed
---------
Co-authored-by: Oleksiy Syvokon <oleksiy@zed.dev>
Co-authored-by: MrSubidubi <finn@zed.dev>
Co-authored-by: David3u <3udavid@gmail.com>
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
---------
Co-authored-by: zed-zippy[bot] <234243425+zed-zippy[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Needed for use in cloud
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Maps the existing `Speed::Fast` plumbing to OpenAI's `service_tier:
"priority"`, which matches what "fast mode" in Codex does. Relevant docs
[here](https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/chat/create#chat-create-service_tier).
Like for the existing Anthropic fast mode we have a
`Model::supports_priority` method for the variants on
https://openai.com/api-priority-processing. Pro, nano, and legacy gpt-4
are excluded; Custom defaults to false.
This is gated to staff only for now (not in this diff, but the existing
fast mode feature), until we have the mechanism to require confirmation
before you enable fast mode.
Release Notes:
- Added support for Fast Mode (priority service tier) on the OpenAI API
provider.
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- Added the ability to input the "expected patch", i.e. what the model
should have predicted in the `edit prediction: rate completions` modal
Code had been assuming (erroneously, but understandably) that
LlmApiToken::acquire would give them a valid token.
This is not true, as those tokens expire and you must call refresh
explicitly.
Add some helpers to do the retry for you, and rename acquire to cached
to be
clearer about the intent.
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- Fixed some rare cases where API requests would fail with Unauthorized
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
This change lays the groundwork for canceling in-flight requests.
Without it, we always wait for a request to complete, even when we
already know its result won't be used.
Release Notes:
- N/A
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/52585
Release Notes:
- Fixed local zeta2 edit predictions using the wrong prompt format.
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A
Starting ~3 weeks ago, `output` no longer contains the cursor marker,
cloud strips it on parsing. Instead, it should return a cursor offset.
Release Notes:
- Fixed moving the cursor to a predicted position in Zeta 2
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
No, sadly, the title is not a typo. See
https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zsg1lk7w13cf for the context.
I'll read with joy and popcorn through that root cause analysis.
It makes literally zero sense what happened here, but for some completly
bonkers reason GitHub completely messed up the merge queue with
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/54632.
I have no idea how it happened. It makes literally zero sense. A PR
going into the merge queue should have the same LoC when getting out of
it. GitHub obviously does not check this. GitHub causes extra work with
a feature that is supposed to save time.
Thanks, I guess.
Release Notes:
- N/A
---------
Co-authored-by: Danilo Leal <daniloleal09@gmail.com>
This PR brings back the button to filter remote branches when accessing
the title bar's branch picker with the mouse. It was unintentionally
removed when we introduced the new worktree picker.
Release Notes:
- N/A
Closes#48394
Moves the data collection preference for Zed's Edit Predictions out of
the internal KV store and into `settings.json` as a proper
`allow_data_collection` setting under `edit_predictions`.
**Migration:** Existing users' choices are preserved. When
`allow_data_collection` is absent from `settings.json`, the resolved
value falls back to the legacy KV entry
(`zed_predict_data_collection_choice`). Once the user toggles the
setting or sets it explicitly, the new setting takes precedence and the
KV entry is ignored.
**Bug fixed:** The original implementation of `toggle_data_collection`
read the raw (unresolved) settings content to determine the current
state. When `allow_data_collection` was absent from `settings.json` but
the KV store held `"true"`, the raw read returned `None → false`,
causing the first toggle click to write `Some(true)` (re-enabling)
instead of `Some(false)` (disabling). The fix reads the resolved
`is_data_collection_enabled()` value before entering the
`update_settings_file` closure.
## Manual testing
**Setting takes effect:**
1. Open settings (`cmd+,`) and add `"allow_data_collection": true` under
`edit_predictions`. Save.
2. Open a file — the data collection indicator in the editor should
reflect the enabled state.
3. Flip to `false` and confirm it updates.
**Toggle correctly disables from KV-enabled state (migration bug fix):**
1. Remove `allow_data_collection` from `settings.json`.
2. Write the legacy KV entry directly:
```
sqlite3 ~/Library/Application\ Support/Zed/db/0-dev/db.sqlite \
"INSERT OR REPLACE INTO kv_store(key,value)
VALUES('zed_predict_data_collection_choice','true');"
```
3. Restart Zed. The data collection toggle should show as **enabled**
(reading from KV store).
4. Click the toggle once to disable. `allow_data_collection` should
appear as `false` in `settings.json` — not `true`, which was the pre-fix
behaviour.
**Upsell modal still appears for new users:**
1. Clear both KV keys and restart:
```
sqlite3 ~/Library/Application\ Support/Zed/db/0-dev/db.sqlite \
"DELETE FROM kv_store WHERE key IN
('zed_predict_data_collection_choice','dismissed-edit-predict-upsell');"
```
2. Open any file so the status bar is visible.
3. Click the edit prediction button (bottom-right status bar) — it
should have a muted dot indicator.
4. The upsell modal should appear. Dismissing it should prevent it from
reappearing.
## Release Notes:
- `allow_data_collection` for Zed's Edit Predictions can now be set
explicitly in `settings.json` under `edit_predictions`. Existing
preferences stored in the internal database are preserved as a fallback.
---------
Co-authored-by: Ben Kunkle <ben.kunkle@gmail.com>
Self-Review Checklist:
- [x] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [x] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [x] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [x] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [x] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- N/A or Added/Fixed/Improved ...
