fix: Improve handling of escaped markers in apply_diff

[p12tic]

Context

unescapeMarkers() is supposed to fix escaped merge conflict markers so that they match the code. However the function has a bug which requires SEARCH and REPLACE strings in the markers to be replaced. This is not part of merge conflict markers, so many valid cases were previously missed.

The change was requested in #2260 (comment).

Implementation

Adjusted replacement to be less strict.

Screenshots

Not applicable.

How to Test

Unit tests

---

Important

Fixes unescapeMarkers in multi-search-replace.ts to handle escaped markers without requiring specific strings, updating tests accordingly.

• Behavior:
  • Fixes unescapeMarkers in multi-search-replace.ts to handle escaped markers without requiring 'SEARCH' or 'REPLACE'.
  • Adjusts regex in applyDiff to match new unescape logic.
• Tests:
  • Updates multi-search-replace.test.ts to remove 'SEARCH' and 'REPLACE' from escaped markers in test cases.
  • Ensures tests validate correct processing of escaped markers without specific strings.

^{This description was created by for 4af2786. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 63b29df

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[KJ7LNW]

Revert changes to existing tests, this change should not break tests I do not think.

If this change does require a test update, then please explain what happened and why...

[KJ7LNW]

also if you have a good argument for making changes to the tests, then I am listening, but I like to be conservative making changes to tests especially when a code change should not affect them.

[mrubens]

I want to get this into tonight's release, so I pushed a change to revert changes to existing tests and to add a new test specific to this functionality. Hopefully not stepping on toes. Thanks for the work on this!

[p12tic]

@mrubens I think the test changes were needed because the crux of the fix is that more generic escaped markers are accepted. We have many tests that check escaped <<<<<<< SEARCH markers, where the correct check should be for whether <<<<<<< any text works (my tests used nothing for "any text").

[KJ7LNW]

I want to get this into tonight's release, so I pushed a change to revert changes to existing tests and to add a new test specific to this functionality.

Perfect, that is what I was looking for: keep existing tests and add new specific tests. If everything passes, then I'm good w/ the changes.

Thanks @p12tic for getting this prepared!