Update experimental-features.md

[mrubens]

Important

Remove UnifiedDiffStrategy references from documentation, focusing on MultiSearchReplaceDiffStrategy.

• Documentation Updates:
  • Remove UnifiedDiffStrategy from experimental-features.md, fast-edits.md, and apply-diff.md.
  • Update apply-diff.md to focus solely on MultiSearchReplaceDiffStrategy.
• Behavior:
  • UnifiedDiffStrategy is no longer mentioned, indicating deprecation or removal.
  • Simplifies user guidance by focusing on a single diff strategy.

^{This description was created by for f85c52c. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
roo-code-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Apr 3, 2025 3:18pm

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to f52e569 in 1 minute and 20 seconds

More details

• Looked at 28 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:18

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'Unified Diff Editing Strategy' section. Ensure that any UI or settings references have also been updated to avoid broken links or confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that UI or settings references have been updated, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure things. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.

2. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:25

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'Multi-block Diff Editing Strategy' section. Confirm that associated configurations or code references have been cleaned up.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:38

• Draft comment:
  Added newline at end of file for consistency with style guidelines.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:18

• Draft comment:
  Removed the 'Unified Diff Editing Strategy' and 'Multi-block Diff Editing Strategy' sections. Please ensure that these features are fully deprecated in both the codebase and release notes to avoid any residual references.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the HTML snippet for the gear icon () renders correctly across all documentation platforms. Consider escaping quotes if necessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. docs/features/experimental/experimental-features.md:25

• Draft comment:
  For the 'Insert Content' and 'Power Steering' features, consider adding links or brief usage examples for further documentation. This can help users understand the experimental feature details and potential impacts more clearly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_KsZLM7wMmc88QDc0

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on f85c52c in 1 minute and 21 seconds

More details

• Looked at 233 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/features/fast-edits.md:29

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the experimental features section seems intentional. Please confirm that this deletion is expected and that no critical information is lost.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. docs/features/fast-edits.md:36

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a newline at the end of the file for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/features/tools/apply-diff.md:48

• Draft comment:
  The 'Strategy Selection' step has been removed from the process flow. Confirm that merging this step with File Analysis or its removal is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The removal of the Strategy Selection step appears intentional and consistent with other changes in the document. The entire UnifiedDiffStrategy section was removed, leaving only MultiSearchReplaceDiffStrategy. Since there's now only one strategy, there's no need for a strategy selection step. The comment is just asking for confirmation of something that appears intentional based on the broader context of changes.
  I could be missing some technical context where strategy selection still happens behind the scenes even though only one strategy is documented.
  Even if strategy selection still happens internally, the documentation change is consistent in presenting only one strategy to users. The removal of this step from the process flow matches the simplified user-facing model.
  The comment should be deleted as it's asking for confirmation of an intentional documentation change that aligns with the broader changes in the document.

4. docs/features/tools/apply-diff.md:62

• Draft comment:
  The documentation now only describes a single diff strategy (MultiSearchReplaceDiffStrategy). Confirm if the removal of UnifiedDiffStrategy details is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates the rule "Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention". The removal of UnifiedDiffStrategy appears deliberate given the consistent changes throughout the doc (updated headings, removed references). If it was unintentional, build/tests would likely catch missing functionality.
  Perhaps UnifiedDiffStrategy is a critical feature and removing its documentation could cause confusion for users. Maybe this deserves discussion.
  While UnifiedDiffStrategy may be important, asking for confirmation of intention is not productive. If the removal was a mistake, it would be caught in testing. If it was intentional, the comment adds no value.
  Delete this comment as it only asks for confirmation of intention without providing actionable feedback.

5. docs/features/fast-edits.md:33

• Draft comment:
  The removal of the 'Experimental Features' section (which included details about the experimental unified diff strategy) appears to streamline the document. Please confirm that this removal is intentional and that any references to experimental diff features are updated elsewhere if they are deprecated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention regarding the removal of a section, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation of intention. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or request for tests, nor does it align with any of the additional rules provided.

6. docs/features/tools/apply-diff.md:49

• Draft comment:
  The 'Strategy Selection' step has been removed and the document now only describes the MultiSearchReplaceDiffStrategy. Ensure that this change accurately reflects current tool behavior and that all references to the unified diff strategy are updated consistently across documentation and code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the change reflects the current tool behavior and that all references are updated consistently. This falls under asking the author to double-check things, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

Workflow ID: wflow_j7dmfqLhghm3VQTQ

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.