1 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:22:11 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 03/14/2016 10:14 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
5 |
> > On 03/05/2016 01:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >> Zac, I'm done with code changes in the rewrite. Ready for a last |
8 |
> >> look before a merge. Can you have a look again? I did some |
9 |
> >> changes/fixes and rebased them in. Floppym hasn't reported any |
10 |
> >> more bugs, so I think it's ready for broader testing in a |
11 |
> >> release. Then we can work on moving all the test data to a |
12 |
> >> separate file in the tree or downloaded... |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > The dynamic_data stuff in Scanner is a little hard to follow. Then |
15 |
> > it calls dynamic_data.update(rdata), is there any chance that the |
16 |
> > update operation might clobber something that shouldn't have been |
17 |
> > clobbered? |
18 |
> |
19 |
> To clarify my question, suppose that one function returns {'foo': |
20 |
> True} and another one returns {'foo', False}, so now there first |
21 |
> {'foo': True} setting is forgotten. Is that going to be a problem? |
22 |
|
23 |
No, as stated in my other reply. There are only a few things that are |
24 |
modified. Mostly as I made a new module, following the original |
25 |
order the checks were run. As data was discovered missing it was added |
26 |
to dynamic_data from the previous check that supplied it to the Scanner |
27 |
class. So, only data needed later was passed back to update the |
28 |
dynamic_data. |
29 |
|
30 |
Also all those checks originally ran in one huge 1k LOC loop with |
31 |
another slightly smaller ebuild loop nested inside it. So all those |
32 |
variables were subject to change already by previous code run. In the |
33 |
stage1 rewrite, I/we did the same thing in creating the separated |
34 |
checks classes. After the check was done, only the data required was |
35 |
brought back into the primary loop. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |