urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

remove highlevel influence calculation stuff 

I have it implemented in both add_depends and pagespec_match_list.
The add_depends implementation is optimised to only try one page
if the pagespec's influences are all static, and do not vary by page
matched.
master
Joey Hess 2009-10-09 17:19:07 -04:00
parent f977eaf394
commit 2ba8bd3861
1 changed files with 0 additions and 51 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

51
doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn
View File

@ -564,57 +564,6 @@ SuccessReason(page, index) => right
`HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(bugs/foo)` =>
`HardFailReason()` => right
#### High-level Calculation and Storage
Naively calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying
to match it against every page in the wiki. I'd like to avoid doing such
expensive matching redundantly.
It may be possible, for some types of pagespecs, to just try matching a
single, arbitrary page against it, and know the full influence list has
been obtained. It seems to be that case that if a pagespec has any
influences, matching any page will return at least one. So if none are
returned, we can skip trying other pages.
If the influence list does not include the page that was tried, we know
that the pagespec does not things like `link()` and `title()`, that are
influenced by the page's own content. So it *might* be safe to not try
matching any more pages in this case too. I think it would work for all
current pagespec terms. There might be a hypothetical term where this
optimisation doesn't work. We could add a special case to ensure it can
work: If a term declares it is unfluenced by "", then it means it is
always influenced by the matching page.
Anyway, this seems worth doing: Add a `pagespec_match_all`, which returns a
list of all pages in the whole wiki that match the pagespec, and also adds
the pagespec as a dependency, and while it's at it, calculates and stores
the influence list.
It could have an optional sort parameter, and limit parameter, to control
how many items to return and the sort order. So when inline wants to
display the 10 newest, only the influence lists for those ten are added.
If `pagespec_match_depends` can be used by all plugins, then great,
influences are automatically calculated, no extra work needs to be done.
If not, and some plugins still need to use `pagespec_match_list` or
`pagespec_match`, and `add_depends`, then I guess that `add_depends` can do
a slightly more expensive influence calculation.
Bonus: If `add_depends` is doing an influence calculation, then I can remove
the nasty hack it currently uses to decide if a given pagespec is safe to use
with an existence or links dependency.
Where to store the influence list? Well, it appears that we can just add
(content) dependencies for each item on the list, to the page's
regular list of simple dependencies. So, the data stored ends up looking
just like what is stored today by the explicit dependency hacks. Except,
it's calculated more smartly, and is added automatically.
> I've implemented influence calculation in `add_depends`. As expected,
> it means rather a lot more work, and makes some things much slower.
> Optimisations next.. --[[Joey]]
#### Influence types
Note that influences can also have types, same as dependency types.