X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/808c699961eae0de7125812d4f1c51ecd5fc6c18..a198c89e8f968549416d3871bddafa831240e6b8:/doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn diff --git a/doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn b/doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn index 97cff97c5..d2b121d81 100644 --- a/doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn @@ -239,6 +239,31 @@ sigh. >>> Hmm, I'm not seeing cycles be a problem, at least with the current >>> pagespec terms. --[[Joey]] +>>>> Oh, they're not with current pagespec terms. But this is really close to extending to handle +>>>> functional pagespecs, etc. And I think I'd like to think about that now. +>>>> +>>>> Having said that, I don't want to hold you up - you seem to be making progress. The best is +>>>> the enemy of the good, etc. etc. +>>>> +>>>> For my part, I'm imagining we have two more constructs in IkiWiki: +>>>> +>>>> * A map directive that actually wikilinks to the pages it links to, and +>>>> * A `match_sharedLink(pageX)` matching function that matches pageY if both pageX and pageY each have links to any same third page, pageZ. +>>>> +>>>> With those two constructs, one page changing might change the set of pages included in a map somewhere, which might then change the set of pages matched by some other pagespec, which might then... +>>>> +>>>> --[[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]] + +>>>>>> Yes - that's what I'm talking about - I'll add some comments there. -- [[Will]] + ---- ### Link dependencies @@ -313,16 +338,13 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches. > Trying to make a formal definition of this: (Note, I'm using the term sets rather than lists, but they're roughly equivalent) > -> * Let the *matching set* for a pagespec be the set of pages that the pagespec matches. -> * Let a *complete influence set* for a pagespec be the set of all pages whose alteration might change the matching set of that pagespec. -> * Let the *direct influence set* be the intersection of the matching set and the complete influence set. -> * Let the *indirect influence set* be the compliment of the direct influence set with respect to the complete influence set. +> * Let the *matching set* for a pagespec be the set of existing pages that the pagespec matches. +> * Let a *influence set* for a pagespec be the set of all pages, *p*, whose alteration might: +> * cause the pagespec to include or exclude a page other than *p*, or +> * cause the pagespec to exclude *p*. +> +>> \[Will snipped some stuff and edited the formal definition] > -> Is that a fair definition? I don't think it quite matches your examples below unfortunately. -> I was unsure if I should insert the word 'existing' in there in a few places. As it stands, these definitions could include sets of pages that don't exist, e.g. "*". -> The one I'm least sure of is the definition of the direct influence set. It feels like you want something -> like "the traditional set of things we thought about that could cause a pagespec to change", but that definition -> is not very formal and I suspect will lead to problems. Something like "The set of pages matched by the globs in the pagespec" might be closer? > --[[Will]] >> I appreciate the formalism! @@ -331,15 +353,36 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches. >> in the future, the existing dependency code will always test to see >> if it matches. So it will be in the maching set (or not) at that point. >> +>>> Hrm, I agree with you in general, but I think I can come up with nasty counter-examples. What about a pagespec +>>> 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. +>> >> The problem with your definition of direct influence set seems to be >> that it doesn't allow `link()` and `title()` to have as an indirect >> influence, the page that matches. But I'm quite sure we need those. >> --[[Joey]] +>>> I see what you mean. Does the revised definition capture this effectively? +>>> The problem with this revised definition is that it still doesn't match your examples below. +>>> My revised definition will include pretty much all currently matching pages to be in the influence list +>>> because deletion of any of them would cause a change in which pages are matched - the removal problem. +>>> -- [[Will]] + #### 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 @@ -349,13 +392,30 @@ can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches. Avoiding including every page in the wiki into its influence list is very important! +>>> 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 @@ -422,6 +482,59 @@ 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! + +---- + +Here is a case where this approach has some false positives. + +"bugs/* and link(patch)" + +This finds as influences all pages that link to patch, even +if they are not under bugs/, and so can never match. + +To fix this, the influence calculation would need to consider boolean +operators. Currently, this turns into roughly: + +`FailReason() & SuccessReason(patch)` + +Let's say that the glob instead returns a HardFailReason, which when +ANDed with another object, drops their influences. (But when ORed, combines +them.) Fixes the above, but does it always work? + +"(bugs/* or link(patch)) and backlink(index)" => +`( HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(page) ) & SuccessReason(index)`` => +`SuccessReason(page & SuccessReason(index)` => +SuccessReason(page, index) => right + +"(bugs/* and link(patch)) or backlink(index)" => +`( HardFailReason() & SuccessReason(page) ) | SuccessReason(index)`` => +`HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(index)` => +`SuccessReason(index)` => right + +"!bugs/* and link(patch)" => +`HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(bugs/foo)` => +`HardFailReason()` => right + #### High-level Calculation and Storage Naively calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying