update
parent
79f3e32ea7
commit
3baf6980aa
|
@ -254,6 +254,14 @@ sigh.
|
|||
>>>>
|
||||
>>>> --[[Will]]
|
||||
|
||||
>>>>> I think that should be supported by [[bugs/transitive_dependencies]].
|
||||
>>>>> At least in the current implementation, which considers each page
|
||||
>>>>> that is rendered to be changed, and rebuilds pages that are dependent
|
||||
>>>>> on it, in a loop. An alternate implementation, which could be faster,
|
||||
>>>>> is to construct a directed graph and traverse it just once. Sounds
|
||||
>>>>> like that would probably not support what you want to do.
|
||||
>>>>> --[[Joey]]
|
||||
|
||||
----
|
||||
|
||||
### Link dependencies
|
||||
|
@ -347,6 +355,13 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches.
|
|||
>>> of "!backlink(bogus)" where the page bogus doesn't exist? In this case, the page 'bogus' needs to be in the influence
|
||||
>>> set even though it doesn't exist.
|
||||
>>>
|
||||
>>>> I think you're right, this is a case that the current code is not
|
||||
>>>> handling. Actually, I made all the pagespecs return influences
|
||||
>>>> even if the influence was not present or did not match. But, it
|
||||
>>>> currently only records influences as dependencies when a pagespec
|
||||
>>>> successfully matches. Now I'm sure that is wrong, and I've removed
|
||||
>>>> that false optimisation. I've updated some of the below. --[[Joey]]
|
||||
>>>
|
||||
>>> Also, I would really like the formalism to include the whole dependency system, not just any additions to it. That will make
|
||||
>>> the whole thing much easier to reason about.
|
||||
>>
|
||||
|
@ -364,7 +379,8 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches.
|
|||
#### Examples
|
||||
|
||||
* The pagespec "created_before(foo)" has an influence list that contains foo.
|
||||
The removal or (re)creation of foo changes what pages match it.
|
||||
The removal or (re)creation of foo changes what pages match it. Note that
|
||||
this is true even if the pagespec currently fails to match.
|
||||
|
||||
* The pagespec "foo" has an empty influence list. This is because a
|
||||
modification/creation/removal of foo directly changes what the pagespec
|
||||
|
@ -377,13 +393,27 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches.
|
|||
>>> So, why don't the above influence lists contain the currently matched pages?
|
||||
>>> Don't you need this to handle the removal problem? -- [[Will]]
|
||||
|
||||
>>>> The removal problem is slightly confusingly named, since it does not
|
||||
>>>> affect pages that were matched by a glob and have been removed. Such
|
||||
>>>> pages can be handled without being influences, because ikiwiki knows
|
||||
>>>> they have been removed, and so can still match them against the
|
||||
>>>> pagespec, and see they used to match; and thus knows that the
|
||||
>>>> dependency has triggered.
|
||||
>>>>
|
||||
>>>> Maybe the thing to do is consider this an optimisation, where such
|
||||
>>>> pages are influences, but ikiwiki is able to implicitly find them,
|
||||
>>>> so they do not need to be explicitly stored. --[[Joey]]
|
||||
|
||||
* The pagespec "title(foo)" has an influence list that contains every page
|
||||
that currently matches it. A change to any matching page can change its
|
||||
title, making it not match any more, and so the list is needed due to the
|
||||
removal problem.
|
||||
removal problem. A page that does not have a matching title is not an
|
||||
influence, because modifying the page to change its title directly
|
||||
changes what the pagespec matches.
|
||||
|
||||
* The pagespec "backlink(index)" has an influence list
|
||||
that contains index (because a change to index changes the backlinks).
|
||||
Note that this is true even if the backlink currently fails.
|
||||
|
||||
* The pagespec "link(done)" has an influence list that
|
||||
contains every page that it matches. A change to any matching page can
|
||||
|
@ -450,6 +480,27 @@ successful match, we get the right result.
|
|||
> `or` short-circuits too, but the implementation correctly uses `|`,
|
||||
> which I assume is what you meant. --[[smcv]]
|
||||
|
||||
>> Er, yeah. --[[Joey]]
|
||||
|
||||
----
|
||||
|
||||
What about: "!link(done)"
|
||||
|
||||
Specifically, I want to make sure it works now that I've changed
|
||||
`match_link` to only return a page as an influence if it *does*
|
||||
link to done.
|
||||
|
||||
So, when matching against page P, that does not link to done,
|
||||
there are no influences, and the pagespec matches. If P is later
|
||||
changed to add a link to done, then the dependency resolver will directly
|
||||
notice that.
|
||||
|
||||
When matching against page P, that does link to done, P
|
||||
is an influence, and the pagespec does not match. If P is later changed
|
||||
to not link to done, the influence will do its job.
|
||||
|
||||
Looks good!
|
||||
|
||||
#### High-level Calculation and Storage
|
||||
|
||||
Naively calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue