Hi Pratyush,
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 12/10/19 11:24PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > > > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > > > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > > > global rescan_active file_states
> > > > - global repo_config
> > > > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> > > >
> > > > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> > > >
> > > > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > > > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
> > >
> > > What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> > > differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or choose
> > > rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line or
> > > hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
> > >
> > > Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> > > "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
> > >
> > > But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumptions
> > > about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after.
> > > The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> > > should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
> > >
> > > Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as someone
> > > changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future passes
> > > a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> > > would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
> > >
> > > So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> > > `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this.
> > > But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason not
> > > to), we can get away with just something like:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> > > }
> > >
> > > Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the rescan
> > > being finished, something like this would also work fine:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan ui_ready
> > > prime_gitdir_cache
> > > }
> >
> > That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
> > code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
> > ![lock_index read]} return` part.
> >
> > I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If there
> > is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
>
> Good catch! In that case I suppose refreshing the cache in $after would
> be the way to go (IOW, the former of my two suggestions). Anything
> $after won't get executed if we return early from that check.
But it also won't get executed before the actual rescan. Which is
precisely what I tried to ensure.
Ciao,
Johannes
>
> > That was the reason why I put the additional code into `rescan` rather
> > than into `ui_do_rescan()`.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> >
> > >
> > > This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan` is
> > > asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the status
> > > bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing.
> > >
> > > I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on using
> > > the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
> > > performance (at least in theory).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > + array unset _gitdir_cache
> > > > + prime_gitdir_cache
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> > > > if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> > > > && $newType eq {normal}
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
>
