On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:43, Jon Bendtsen <jbendtsen_at_laerdal.dk> wrote:
> On 21/01/2009, at 12.13, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Rather than applying specific names to the components, how about a
>> more general solution such as (for your example above):
>> path-headers = module:0 branch:1 submodule:2 mysubsub:3 file:-1
> Thats already possible. You dont have to get all 4, for each of the 4
> you can
> choose to get them or not. Though the header name will be like those
> i choose when i made it to fit our usage. I just figured that others
> would like
> the feature.
I agree with the feature, but am saying that the header names will be
"wrong". If I have a repository, like Subversion's own, that has:
Then I could end up with:
The first is broken, the second has a good X-branch header, but the
X-module is nonsense.
So... I'm suggesting a more flexible way to parse the path and to
assign names to each of the segments of the path.
>> Or something like that. Basically: NAME:SEGMENT-NUMBER. Of course, the
>> problem here is that "submodule" is sometimes at segment 1 of the path
>> (under /trunk), but at segment 2 for /tags and /branches.
>> The difference between /trunk and /tags and /branches could be handled
>> with a separate [group] which matches specific paths using for_paths.
> The patch can have individual group configuration. However, to get
> for a new branch by using a new group you have to write a new group into
> the configuration file. We dont have to do that, because if someone
> a new branch, then the name will be put into the header of the email
What I mean is something like this:
for_paths = trunk/
path-headers = module:1
for_paths = branches/
path-headers = branch:1 module:2
for_paths = tags/
path-headers = tag:1 module:2
Email for changes in trunk would generate X-module with the segment
just after trunk/. Changes in tags and branches would skip segment 0
("tags" or "branches") and define new X-tag or X-branch headers, along
with the proper segment for the X-module header.
>> if we follow the above suggestion and create a mechanism allowing the
>> configuration to specify name/value, then maybe we would pass some
>> kind of a HeaderSpec object (to be designed).
> I see your point of passing 5 seperate parameters, but someone reading
> the code can understand what this parameter does, and i was expecting
> everyone to always use all available headers, so i figured i should just
> pass them all along.
It took a while for me to figure out you were just bundling 5 values
into one parameter, then immediately unbundling them. The
"header_list" parameter has no other semantic than as a bundle. To
take that pattern to its illogical conclusion, all methods would take
a single parameter, all callers would bundle up a list, and the
function would unbundle it first thing.
Again, if we have a generalized mechanism for tearing apart paths,
that definition could go into a single object and passed that way.
We'd have the flexibility that any project would need, but would also
be able to pass a single parameter rather than five.
>>> class SMTPOutput(MailedOutput):
>>> "Deliver a mail message to an MTA using SMTP."
>>> - def start(self, group, params):
>>> + def start(self, group, params, header_list):
>>> MailedOutput.start(self, group, params)
>> header_list should be passed to the superclass.
> Why? Only the emails use it
Because you defined the superclass to take that parameter. The
MailedOutput.start() call is going to throw an exception because you
don't pass the value.
>> What is this stuff with [x] at the beginning? I see no doc about it,
>> or other references/use.
> what [x]? i do not understand. I stole the if_then_else from some other
> part of the script. I think it was where the group setup the from
Oh. I see it now in other areas of the code. Something new that was
added when I wasn't looking. Ugh.
> That may be so, but author only started showing up when i did group and
> the other headers. I certainly dont remember seeing author before, and i
> didnt make changes to the underlying SMTP system. But i maybe just have
> overlooked the author field. But why would the SMTP system put in an
> field? wouldnt it just put in an from address?
No idea. But the point is that I don't think that comment should be
there, since we don't actually add that field anywhere. (we *do* put
"Author:" into the body of the message, however)
Received on 2009-01-21 13:27:49 CET