On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:25 PM Pratyush Yadav me-at-yadavpratyush.com
|GitHub Public/Example Allow| <172q77k4bxwj0zt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/11/19 07:05AM, Jonathan Gilbert via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/chord.tcl
> > @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
>
> The 'class' documentation [0] suggests adding a "package require TclOO".
> But TclOO ships by default with Tcl 8.6 and above. So, I'm not really
> sure if we need this.
I'm not super familiar with it. I just checked what Tcl version I was
myself running, since it's only there because of the Git Gui
installation bundled with Git for Windows, and it was 8.6, so I
assumed it was fair game to use. It didn't occur to me that you could
already have an older version of Tcl installed and have Git Gui use
it. :-) So, if I'm understanding correctly, `TclOO` as a package could
potentially be used to allow TclOO to be used with 8.4, the minimum
supported version you mention below, and it just happened to work for
me in my testing without that because I have 8.6 installed but that's
technically newer than the supported baseline?
> Nice to see some good documentation!
>
> One nitpick: would it make more sense to have the documentation for a
> method/constructor just above that method/constructor? This way, when
> someone updates the code some time later, they'll also hopefully
> remember to update the documentation. It is much more likely to be stale
> if all of it just stays on the top.
Hmm, what do you think of both? I was thinking of the documentation as
a single self-contained block that someone could read to put together
an understanding of how the chord system fits together, and split out,
it wouldn't have that readability. What about a more abstract
description in a block at the top, and then more technically-detailed
& specific descriptions attached to each method?
> > +oo::class create SimpleChord {
>
> This comes from the TclOO package, right?
>
> git-gui has its own object-oriented system (lib/class.tcl). It was
> written circa 2007. I suspect something like TclOO did not exist back
> then.
>
> Why not use that? Does it have some limitations that TclOO does not
> have? I do not mind using the "official" OO system. I just want to know
> why exactly you made the choice.
Having limited experience with Tcl, I did a Google search for "tcl
object oriented" and ended up writing code using TclOO because that's
what came up. Do you think it makes sense to rework this to use
`class.tcl`, or perhaps instead the opposite: have a policy of using
the standard TclOO going forward, and let the rest of Git Gui
organically upgrade itself to some hypothetical point in the future
where class.tcl is no longer used by anything?
> More importantly, TclOO ships as part of the core distribution with Tcl
> 8.6, but as of now the minimum version required for git-gui is 8.4. So,
> I think we should bump the minimum version (8.6 released circa 2012, so
> most people should have caught up by now I hope).
If I understand correctly, you mentioned that TclOO was intrinsically
available to me because I was using Tcl 8.6, and that the manual
recommends `package require TclOO` -- does that package dependency
permit the use of TclOO on 8.4? If so, could that be a way to avoid
bumping the minimum version required? Simply in the interest of
keeping the scope of the change limited. If not, then bumping the
minimum required version to 8.6 from 2012 doesn't seem entirely
unreasonable either. :-)
> > + variable Notes
> > + variable Body
> > + variable IsCompleted
>
> Nitpick: Please use snake_case, here and in other places.
Okay, yep -- I had copied the convention that I saw in TclOO examples,
conscious of the fact that there might be a standard specific to
object-oriented Tcl.
> > + method notify_note_activation {} {
>
> Since this method is for internal use only, can it be made "private"?
> Does the OO library support something like this?
I don't think so, because it's called from outside the class. What
we'd be looking for is something like C++'s "friend" syntax. Tcl
doesn't seem to have this. Though, I just did some further Googling,
and saw a hint that it might be possible to bypass member security on
a case-by-case basis, so that the method is private but `ChordNote` is
able to call it anyway. I'll see if I can't figure this out. :-)
> > + method unknown {} {
>
> I'm a bit lost here. This method is named 'unknown', but searching for
> 'unknown' in this patch just gives me two results: this line here, and
> then one in a comment at the start of the file.
>
> From what I understand looking at the code, it some sort of a "default"
> method, and is called when you run just `$chord_note`. How exactly is
> this method designated to be the default?
>
> Also, "unknown" makes little sense in this context. Can you rename it to
> something more meaningful? Maybe something like "activate_note"?
I think it's the fact that it is named `unknown` that makes it the
"default" method. I think this just needs documentary comments next to
it. The TclOO documentation says:
> obj unknown ?methodName? ?arg ...?
> This method is called when an attempt to invoke the method methodName on
> object obj fails. The arguments that the user supplied to the method are
> given as arg arguments. If methodName is absent, the object was invoked with
> no method name at all (or any other arguments).
It was based on that last sentence that I interpreted `unknown` as,
"This is a mechanism for making an object that can be called like a
method."
> > + if {!$IsActivated} {
> > + set IsActivated 1
> > + $Chord notify_note_activation
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
>
> From what I understand, the "Note" object is effectively used as a
> count. There is no other state associated with it. When I first heard of
> your description of this abstraction, I assumed that a Note would also
> store a script to execute with it. So, when you "activate" a note, it
> would first execute the script, and then mark itself as "activated", and
> notify the chord. Would that abstraction make more sense?
>
> I don't really mind keeping it this way, but I wonder if that design
> would make the abstraction easier to wrap your head around.
I learned about the concept of chords and notes from an experimental
language that Microsoft created many years back called "Polyphonic C#"
(which in turn got rolled into "Cw" (C-omega)), and in that
abstraction, the idea was that, well, as a baseline, for starters, we
have methods and each one, conceptually, has an entrypoint with a
certain set of parameters, and when you call that entrypoint, the
parameters are all set and the body runs. With a "chord", you have
more than one entrypoint attached to the same body -- the entrypoints
themselves don't have any logic associated with them individually.
Each note has its own parameter list, and when all the notes have been
called, the body is run with _all_ of those parameters.
I drew some ASCII art, don't know if it'll translate in the message,
but here goes :-)
Basic method (or, if you will, a "chord" with only one "note"):
(caller)
|
void Add(int X, int Y)
|
{ output(X + Y) }
A "chord" with two "notes":
(caller) (caller)
| |
void AddX(int X) void AddY(int Y)
| |
`-----------.-----------'
|
{ output(X + Y) }
The specific details differ from what I've written here. In Polyphonic
C#, you don't have to instantiate a chord, you simply start calling
methods, and the runtime matches up complete sets dynamically. (Just
thinking through the implications of this, if the notes aren't all
called at exactly the same rate this obviously leads very easily to
bugs that chew up all memory on incomplete chords. :-P) Also,
Microsoft's language has parameters to each of the notes that are
_all_ passed to the body at once. My implementation here is a "simple"
chord, I didn't bother with arguments, as they aren't needed in this
usage :-) I also found it much simpler to think of implementing the
chord with the activations being explicit instead of implicit. So
instead of saying up front, "Here is my method body and here are its 3
entrypoints", with this implementation the chord is a dynamic object,
you say "Here is my method body" and get back a thing that you can
start tacking entrypoints onto.
But, a "note" in a SimpleChord isn't a counter, it's a latch. The
chord itself is acting sort of like a counter, in that all the notes
need to be activated, but because the notes are latches, activating a
note repeatedly has the same effect as activating it once. There's no
way for one note to interfere with other notes, which wouldn't be the
case if it literally were just a counter.
It seems to me that a chord where each note has a script of its own is
actually basically just a class with methods, I guess with a common
joined epilogue?:
(caller) (caller)
| |
void AddX(int X) void AddY(int Y)
| |
{ script for AddX } {script for AddY }
| |
`-----------.-----------'
|
{ common tail?? }
The whole point is that the notes are conceptually different "headers"
into _the same_ body. When you call a note of a chord, it is because
you want the _chord_'s script to run, and the chord is acting as a
construct that says "okay, yes, I'll satisfy your request that I
execute, but you'll have to wait, because I'm going to satisfy _all_
your requests in one go".
> > $::main_status stop
> > - unlock_index
> > - uplevel #0 $after
>
> There is a call to unlock_index in the body of the if statement above
> too. Do we want to remove that too, or should it be left alone?
>
> That codepath seems to be taken when a major error happens, and we just
> resign to our fate and get a fresh start by doing a rescan and syncing
> the repo state. So it is quite likely whatever operation we were doing
> failed spectacularly.
>
> Maybe the answer is to swallow the bitter pill and introduce a
> switch/boolean in `_close_updateindex` that controls whether the index
> is unlocked or not. We unlock it when the if statement is not taken, and
> keep the current codepath when it is. I call it a "bitter pill" because
> I'm usually not a huge fan of adding knobs like that in functions. Makes
> the function harder to reason about and makes it more bug prone.
>
> If you can think of a better/cleaner way of working around this,
> suggestions are welcome!
Hmm, so, yeah, the entire if statement only occurs if it can't close
the file descriptor. Is that something that actually happens? If so,
then it should perhaps be throwing an exception, because having
started a rescan is probably more than the caller bargained for. That
would prevent the callers from unlocking the index out from under the
rescan, and also cancel any other processing they might be doing that
is probably making bad assumptions with a rescan running.
> > if {$update_index_cp >= $total_cnt} {
> > - _close_updateindex $fd $after
> > + _close_updateindex $fd $do_unlock_index $after
>
> _close_updateindex takes only one argument, and you pass it 3.
> $do_unlock_index does not seem to be defined anywhere. $after is
> evaluated just after this line, and _close_updateindex doesn't accept
> the argument anyway. I suspect this is a leftover from a different
> approach you tried before this one.
It is indeed, oops!
> Also, unlike all the other places where _close_updateindex is used, this
> one does not make a call to unlock_index. Is that intended? IIUC, it
> should be intended, since this is the part which uses the "chord", but a
> confirmation would be nice.
Intentional, yes. I'll see if there's a concise way to document this.
> > + # Common "after" functionality that waits until multiple asynchronous
> > + # operations are complete (by waiting for them to activate their notes
> > + # on the chord).
>
> Nitpick: mention what the "multiple asynchronous operations" are exactly
> (i.e, they are the deletion and index checkout operations).
Okeydoke.
> > set after {}
>
> 'after' seems to be an unused variable. This line can be deleted.
Good catch.
> > + if {($deletion_error_cnt > 0) && ($deletion_error_cnt <= [MAX_VERBOSE_FILES_IN_DELETION_ERROR])} {
>
> Nitpick: please split the line into two.
Will do.
> > + set error_text "Encountered errors deleting files:\n"
>
> Wrap the string in a `mc [...]` so it can be translated some time in the
> future.
Ah, yes, I did that with most messages, this was an oversight.
> > +proc MAX_VERBOSE_FILES_IN_DELETION_ERROR {} { return 10; }
>
> Why use a procedure, and not a global variable? My guess is to make it
> impossible for some code to change this value by mistake. Do I guess
> correctly?
A variable is by definition not a constant. This is the pattern that
came up when I did a search for how one makes a constant in Tcl. ""\_(
``_/ )_/""
Making it a procedure means that if someone wants to put actual logic
behind it in the future, it's already being called as a proc.
> Wew! This took longer than I expected ;)
>
> Tested on Linux. Works fine after fixing the extra arguments passed to
> `_close_updateindex`. Thanks.
Yeah, I did run things as I was changing them to verify, and felt like
I covered everything, I'm surprised I didn't bump into that, obviously
I didn't cover everything after all. Perfect demonstration of why
developers should never be exclusively responsible for testing their
own code :-D
Let me know w.r.t. which OO framework to employ and what that means
for minimum required versions and/or package references.
Thanks very much,
Jonathan Gilbert
