From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89F059CA3 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A7DA21C08B; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA20021C08A for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from professor-x (S010634bdfa9ecf80.vc.shawcable.net [96.49.31.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB088340CB4 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:52:56 -0700 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Patch] Repoman rewrite stage2 modularization conversion complete Message-ID: <20160314105256.37fb8e90.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <56E6F343.80005@gentoo.org> References: <20160110134008.4fce78c0.dolsen@gentoo.org> <5693CCAF.7020102@gentoo.org> <20160305133705.42b54258.dolsen@gentoo.org> <56E6F167.4050806@gentoo.org> <56E6F343.80005@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0dad5cdb-0da5-4fbb-b177-243f349a34e2 X-Archives-Hash: 427b556c684db6babb873605e8a8f3e7 On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:22:11 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On 03/14/2016 10:14 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 03/05/2016 01:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > >> Zac, I'm done with code changes in the rewrite. Ready for a last > >> look before a merge. Can you have a look again? I did some > >> changes/fixes and rebased them in. Floppym hasn't reported any > >> more bugs, so I think it's ready for broader testing in a > >> release. Then we can work on moving all the test data to a > >> separate file in the tree or downloaded... > > > > The dynamic_data stuff in Scanner is a little hard to follow. Then > > it calls dynamic_data.update(rdata), is there any chance that the > > update operation might clobber something that shouldn't have been > > clobbered? > > To clarify my question, suppose that one function returns {'foo': > True} and another one returns {'foo', False}, so now there first > {'foo': True} setting is forgotten. Is that going to be a problem? No, as stated in my other reply. There are only a few things that are modified. Mostly as I made a new module, following the original order the checks were run. As data was discovered missing it was added to dynamic_data from the previous check that supplied it to the Scanner class. So, only data needed later was passed back to update the dynamic_data. Also all those checks originally ran in one huge 1k LOC loop with another slightly smaller ebuild loop nested inside it. So all those variables were subject to change already by previous code run. In the stage1 rewrite, I/we did the same thing in creating the separated checks classes. After the check was done, only the data required was brought back into the primary loop. -- Brian Dolbec