X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/64370885cca3a37ee1f4a9e96673aca7ba5daae4..c7bdebaaf134729356852918b387071c92f85e72:/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn b/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn index 1ba142331..739be8286 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn @@ -55,3 +55,58 @@ reprocessed is done so in the same conditions as the original call. >> with vicious conditional dependency circles that would break/unbreak >> depending on which pass we are in. And I believe this is an intrinsic >> limitation of the system, which cannot be solved at all. + +>>> One way forward that I can think of for this issue is to +>>> have a way to tell `\[[!if]]` which answer it should assume for +>>> scanning purposes, so it would assume that answer when running +>>> in the scan phase, and really evaluate the pagespec when running +>>> in the render phase. For instance: +>>> +>>> \[[!if test="enabled(foo)" scan_assume=yes then=""" +>>> \[[!foo]] +>>> """]] +>>> +>>> could maybe scan \[[!foo]] unconditionally. +>>> +>>> This makes me wonder whether `\[[!if]]` was too general: by having +>>> the full generality of pagespecs, it reduces its possible uses to +>>> "those contexts where pagespecs work". +>>> +>>> Another possibility might be to have "complex" pagespecs and sort +>>> orders (those whose correct answer requires scanning to have completed, +>>> like `link()` and sorting by `meta(title)`) throw an error when used in +>>> the scan phase, but simple pagespecs like `enabled()` and `glob()`, and +>>> simple sort orders like `title` and `path`, could continue to work? +>>> My `wip-too-soon` work-in-progress branch is heading in this direction, +>>> although it currently makes `pagespec_match` fail completely and does +>>> not even allow "simple" pagespecs and sort orders. +>>> +>>> At the moment, if a pagespec cannot be evaluated, `\[[!if]]` will +>>> produce neither the `then` clause nor the `else` clause. This could +>>> get pretty confusing if it is run during the scan phase and produces +>>> an error, then run during the render phase and succeeds: if you had, +>>> say, +>>> +>>> \[[!if run_during_scan=1 test="link(foo)" then=""" +>>> there is a link to foo +>>> \[[!tag there_is_a_link_to_foo]] +>>> """ else=""" +>>> there is no link to foo +>>> \[[!tag there_is_no_link_to_foo]] +>>> """]] +>>> +>>> then the resulting page would contain one of the snippets of text, +>>> but its metadata would contain neither of the tags. Perhaps the plugin +>>> would have to remember that it failed during the scan phase, so that +>>> it could warn about the failure during the render phase instead of, +>>> or in addition to, producing its normal output? +>>> +>>> Of the conditional-specific tests, `included()` and `destpage(glob)` +>>> can never match during scan. +>>> +>>> Does anyone actually use `\[[!if]]` in ways that they would want to +>>> be active during scan, other than an `enabled(foo)` test? +>>> I'm increasingly tempted to add `\[[!ifenabled foo]]` to solve +>>> that single case, and call that a solution to this bug... +>>> +>>> --[[smcv]]