X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/4f9c5896b242ac08be181047ad426bd458a0bf49..b0627aef10e3b5cf71f089aa4d586326b99bcc91:/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn diff --git a/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn b/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn index c61afe81e..c44fe7962 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ If a sidebar contains a map, or inline (etc), one would expect a -change/add/remove of any of the mapped/inlined pages to cause a full wiki +add/remove of any of the mapped/inlined pages to cause a full wiki rebuild. But this does not happen. If page A inlines page B, which inlines page C, a change to C will cause B @@ -25,9 +25,15 @@ everything uses) will just result in semi-redundant dependency info being recorded. If we make destpage mandatory to fix this, goofing up will lead to this bug coming back. Ugh. -Another approach to fix it could be to say that anything that causes a +---- + +## rebuild = change approach + +[[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/transitive-dependencies author="[[joey]]"]] + +Another approach to fix it is to say that anything that causes a rebuild of B is treated as a change of B. Then when C is changed, B is -rebuilt due to dependencies, and in turn this means A is rebuild because B +rebuilt due to dependencies, and in turn this means A is rebuilt because B "changed". This is essentially what is done with wikilinks now, and why, if a sidebar @@ -40,8 +46,49 @@ here: building contact.mdwn, which depends on sidebar ... -The only downside I can see with this approach is that it involves more work. -Does the dep resolver have to keep looping until no new pages are rebuilt? -Seems worth a try to implement this approach. +Downsides here: + +* Means a minimum of 2x as much time spent resolving dependencies, + at least in my simple implementation, which re-runs the dependency + resolution loop until no new pages are rebuilt. + (I added an optimisation that gets it down to 1.5X as much work on + average, still 2x as much worst case. I suppose building a directed + graph and traversing it would be theoretically more efficient.) +* Causes extra work for some transitive dependencies that we don't + actually care about. This is amelorated, but not solved by + the current work on [[todo/dependency_types]]. + For example, changing index causes + plugins/brokenlinks to update in the first pass; if there's a second + pass, plugins/map is no longer updated (contentless dependencies FTW), + but plugins is, because it depends on plugins/brokenlinks. + (Of course, this is just a special case of the issue that a real + modification to plugins/brokenlinks causes an unnecessary update of + plugins, and could be solved by adding more dependency types.) + +[[done]] --[[Joey]] + +> Some questions/comments... I've thought about this a lot for [[todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies]]. +> +> * When you say that anything that causes a rebuild of B is treated as a change of B, are you: i) Treating +> any rebuild as a change, or ii) Treating any rebuild that gives a new result as a change? Option ii) would +> lead to fewer rebuilds. Implementation is easy: when you're about to rebuild a page, load the old rendered html in. Do the rebuild. Compare +> the new and old html. If there is a difference, then mark that page as having changed. If there is no difference +> then you don't need to mark that pages as changed, even though it has been rebuilt. (This would ignore pages in meta-data that don't +> cause changes in html, but I don't think that is a huge issue.) + +>> That is a good idea. I will have to look at it to see if the overhead of +>> reading back in the html of every page before building actually is a +>> win though. So far, I've focused on avoiding unnecessary rebuilds, and +>> there is still some room for more dependency types doing so. +>> (Particularly for metadata dependencies..) --[[Joey]] + +> * The second comment I have relates to cycles in transitive dependencies. At the moment I don't think this is +> possible, but with some additions it may well become so. This could be problematic as it could lead to a) +> updates that never complete, or b) it being theoretically unclear what the final result should be (i.e. you +> can construct logical paradoxes in the system). I think the point above about marking things as changed only when +> the output actually changes fixes any cases that are well defined. For logical paradoxes and infinite loops (e.g. +> two pages that include each other), you might want to put a limit on the number of times you'll rebuild a page in any +> given run of ikiwiki. Say, only allow a page to rebuild twice on any run, regardless of whether a page it depends on changes. +> This is not a perfect solution, but would be a good approximation. -- [[Will]] ---[[Joey]] +>> Ikiwiki only builds any given output file once per run, already. --[[Joey]]