Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Add --output-style option to repoman

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:19:35 -0500
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 10, 2014 20:22:36 Chris Reffett wrote:
> > > This patch adds a --output-style option to repoman, which gives the
> > > user a choice of output formats for the repoman checks. Choices are
> > > "default" (current style) and "column" (a greppable format), but it
> > > should be easy to add more. Fixes bug 481584.
> >
> > i'd expect a proper structured output would make sense to include in
> > the default set.  like JSON.  just create a dict and send it to
> > json.dump().
>
> He is working on more changes to repoman and the output. So, if you
> can, Chris, then do it, add a json option.
>
>
> >
> > > v2: Fix docstring to be complete and in the standard format, make
> > > use of default choices in --output-style wrt comments by antarus
> > > and dol-sen
> >
> > erm, i thought the previous docstring was correct.  it followed
> > PEP257 while this new one is like javadoc or something.
> >
>
> It is the existing format that has been around in portage for years.
> There is even a page for it:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/policies/docstring-spec.xml
>
> It is also the style that epydoc recognizes.
>
> > > -utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail,
> > > options, qawarnings)
> > > +if options.output_style == 'column':
> > > +   utilities.format_qa_output_column(f, stats, fails, dofull,
> > > dofail, options, qawarnings)
> > > +else:
> > > +   utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull,
> > > dofail, options, qawarnings)
> >
> > use a func pointer instead.
> > format_outputs = {
> >       'column': utilities.format_qa_output_column,
> >       'default': utilities.format_qa_output,
> > }
> > format_output = format_outputs.get(options.output_style,
> >       format_outputs['default'])
> > format_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail, options, qawarnings)
> >
>
> yeah, make it so.  Good spot, Mike
>
>
> Since Mike was too slow in replying, make another commit to change
> it.
>
> > > +           formatter.add_literal_data("NumberOf " + category
> > > + " ")
> >
> > prefer to use % rather than + like so:
> >       'NumberOf %s ' % category
> >
> > > +           formatter.add_literal_data("%s" % number)
> >
>
> well actually, for simple additions like that, string1 + string2, it is
> actually faster.
> But for multiple additions,  %s is much better, faster.  Also if the
> string is translated, then use %s regardless.  That way the %s can be
> moved around for the translation.
>

In general we prefer % for readability purposes, not because it is faster.

foo = "Bar" + foo + " " + baz + "," + goat

foo = "Bar %s %s, %s" % (foo, baz, goat)

I think this case could go either way, because even with %, "NumberOf%s" is
not much of an improvement.
The code is littered with the former though, and it makes it really
annoying to read ;)

-A



>
> > str(number)
> > -mike
>
>
>
> --
> Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
>
>