When I was checking , I saw an alert about an Edit made to the post. I clicked that to see the edit and found the styling for code was not applied after edit. Ref below image  so I refreshed the page and found the styling is again applied to the code. Ref below image  I believe it's kind of bug so added a question over here.
120873
I don't know how long this has been happening, but I recently noticed what seems to be a regression: after clicking the "An edit has been made to this post" banner that appears when a question or an answer has been edited while you're viewing it, any code syntax highlighting or math formatting in the post fails to render.  Steps to reproduce:   Open a question with highlighted code or MathJax markup that is likely to get edited soon. (The  or  is a good place to find some.) Leave the question open until someone edits it and the "An edit has been made to this post" banner appears. (For efficiency, open several questions in separate tabs and wait a few minutes until one of them gets edited.) Click the banner. Observe that the question gets reloaded, but it loses any syntax highlighting or math formatting.   (The bug also occurs for edited answers, but those tend to be harder to find on demand.  Unfortunately, editing a post yourself while having it open in another tab doesn't seem to work, since the banner never appears in that case.)    FWIW, the cause of this bug appears to be a missing call to styleCode() (or equivalent code) in the reloadPosts function in realtime-se.js, as included in the  bundle. (In particular, running styleCode() from the browser JavaScript console after reloading the post restores the missing syntax highlighting.)  I'm pretty sure this used to work automatically, so I suspect this is a regression caused by some recent code reorganization.
118033
Please look at the image. The right column's text jumbles with some comment text when the comment contains a large amount of white-space inside an inline code block. I guess that's not the design may be the comments should be a little bit more restricted from expanding? What do you think?    Now even kinda worse:
51231
When reviewing Suggested Edits the output is marked using red and green background colors on the text. Sometimes this makes it hard to see the actual changes.  It would be nice if there was a button that turns off the diff color highlighting as long as the mouse is pressed on it (or hovers it or whatever), so one can switch fast between the "natural" look and the diff view.  Just to avoid misunderstandings: The color diff should stay the default view as it does a great job in helping to locate the changes, but it does not help in evaluating them.
19999
I was editing my profile when I noticed this:  On SO        On Code Review.SE        The ::after content should have a little margin from the text itself. Currently, it hinders the readability.
724
I just tried to edit a post on Stack Overflow but when I pressed the 'edit' button it showed me this message on a white page.    I know what the message means but I don't think it is supposed to show up in a white page. So, is this a bug or is it something else?
62173
I only see this on sites where I don't have edit privileges, and only where there have been multiple revisions:        What exactly is this supposed to do?  Intuitively, I would expect it to change the text in the box to what it was at that revision, but it doesn't. And, if that's it, why only where I need to suggest edits?
90313
If I edit a question and then click the "close" link, it doesn't work. Nothing appears on the screen and I'm forced to reload the page before the link works.  A  covers similar ground (except my edit wasn't inline), however this was apparently fixed.  (I've tagged as  as this is the only site I have the reputation to reproduce the issue on.)
68331
EDIT:  It seems that I've also had edits that stacked well, so I'm not sure if I had a timing problem, or was just delusional.  The one thing that can be fixed, that I'll turn this question into, is a feature request so that when I go to re-edit (either within the 5-minute grace period, or before a suggested edit is approved), it brings up the old edit summary text.  Right now, it brings up a blank edit summary, and this replaced the first one I did.  This isn't really intuitive, and even knowing that's what it's doing, I still forget to put everything in.  Original Question:  It has happened a few times now, when on a site where I don't have edit privileges, that I make an edit.  I then see that the edit didn't work quite right, so I go back in to re-edit it.  This creates a brand new edit review, with an additional useless summary. How about we have the same grace period to re-edit your up-for-review edit, as there is for a normal edit? Of course, it wouldn't be possible once it's been approved.
31591
For example, on the   , note that the edits are rendered with Markdown previews.    (e.g. the code-ified and linked array_unique() at the start of my post) Markdown is not supported in excerpts, so this should not happen. This is still an issue eight years later.
50581
Someone commented on my answer and I just replied to that in a comment. The I immediately edited the comment by selecting it and then pressing edit on action bar.  The edit didn't show up, even after doing a pull to refresh on the question, it was showing the comment in its original form.  It only showed up once I reopened the question from the right drawer (notifications).  The apps says 1.0.60 in about.
8294
Yesterday I was pointed at some rejected suggested edits. Some of the corrections were valid, so I edited the posts accordingly, while making several further edits. Looking at the suggested edits now however, it seems that for those posts where only changes to the title were originally suggested, the post mortem suggested edit view now incorporates the body of the latest revision. (Or at least it appears like that to me)  Take for example . If you take a look at  of that post, you will see my later edits. The edited body seems to have been incorporated in the suggested edit view. For edits where originally changes to the body were suggested, there is no such confusion.   Why does this matter? In the case of some post mortem discussions or explanations it might help to see the actual situation as it was when the edit was suggested. Especially in the case of edits that might be considered too minor.   So have I stumbled upon a bug here?
21905
I tried to update a jQuery code block that was missing a curly brace. The code is incorrect, but I cannot edit it since changes under 6 characters are not allowed (at least at my level of rep?).  I understand why you don't want to allow minor copy-editing, and I agree that's fine for textual descriptions and regular writing, but 1 character can make a big difference in code.
103308
I just posted an answer. (Revision history .)  I edited it a few seconds later (within my 5 minute grace period), and it comes up as a new revision!? Why?    ^^You can see 'answered 1 min ago', and then 'edited 1 min ago' - how is that possible?  Additionally, !?    I don't think this is a dupe of . See my comments on AI.E's answer. If you're a mod, it will really help.
52040
I found this , but I am not sure if this is the same issue.  On , I did some reformatting of the indentation in the code block to make it a bit more readable and it was  for peer review. A few minutes later, it appears the OP made an edit that added some additional code. It looks like my suggested edit was applied when the OP saved his/her edit, and it looks like he got the "credit" for the edit.  I'm not really concerned about the 2 rep points; I'm more curious why this happened and if this is a bug (or limitation) in the editing feature, or if this is known/intended behavior?  Note that this is not a suggested edit that's overridden by a concurrent edit: the recorded edit starts from the post-suggested edit state (and in fact can be identical to it, as in  ).
36185
Please have a look at . When the question was asked by the OP, it had a scope related problem in the code snippet posted in it. 2 answers were posted for that question. But after the answers were posted, a friend of mine from Stack Overflow, edited the question(not sure with what intention) in such a way that the bug in the code was gone(it actually self answered the question). Please have a look at the question revision history, where I've rolled back the question to the original state, which has the problem in place.  My question is that, should such a practice be allowed/encouraged that an edit to a question renders all the answers posted for that question, totally irrelevant? As anybody who comes to have a look at the question later, will be highly confused as to why a question was asked without any problem and there were so many answers posted to it(not everybody cares to go through the revision history)? I happened to notice that, but not everybody would notice it.
109351
I just edited  that contained some code that was overall neat and correct, but wouldn't compile. I made it compile clean and (in my opinion) more readable.  The edit got rejected as too minor, because during my edit the OP made the code compile-clean in the grace period and thus in the diff that shows up to the reviewers, only the parts making the code more readable showed up. Such an edit is a too minor one, without question.  In my opinion there are two possibilities to solve this kind of "conflict":   When user A has edited a post and user B (>2k rep, or original author) has edited that post in the meantime user A gets a message that the post has changed and is asked to revise that edit based on the changes made in the meantime. The easier one: Don't allow edit suggestions in the grace period.   I don't care about the missing reputation I would have gotten if the suggestion had been approved. I just don't like my suggestions being reviewed on a false basis - because the diff that is displayed to the approvers does not display the correct edit.  Doing a quick search here on meta I found some questions maybe related to this problem - none of them however addresses the problem of the review based on incorrect diffs:
55921
Another meta question identified a bug that was marked as designed. To summarize the bug, the little number that appears next the Review link in the header shows an incorrect value most of the time.         I would like to propose that the feature be dropped. Honestly, I would prefer it be fixed, but the response to the question above gives me little faith that it will be. Half of the time, I click that little brown box and find out that I was lied to. There's nothing to review.  The little number no longer does the job it was created to do.        Oh sweet! Three things I can review!        Just kidding...