RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
Interesting. I think there is an opportunity for optimizing this, to eliminate the asis by changing the synchronization point. For example, if the contents of the foo1 fileset were not computed until actually needed, then you could do away with the asis and apply the exclude. I'm not sure I want change something in such fundamental thing as fileset. Simple extension should be ok, but change some functionality... I dont want change whole NAnt, I just want to contribute small enhancement which I find very useful. Since I dont use asis myself I dont know what for hacks it could be good. To your second note: filesets are computed lazily - that means when they used for first time. There are some issues about it (like creating fileset then deleting some files and wondering why their names are not stored in fileset!). Merge operation is use of fileset, so I explicitelly scan it. Its real need becouse of merging two filesets with distinct basedirs. What happens if you remove the implicit asis that you generate, and instead insert explicit asis attributes into the foo1 fileset? It workes well (except doubling bug 1195736), excludes working. Only issue is that every file from merged fileset is scanned twice. Its not big performance issue, imo, since scan pathed file is just test for file existence. I'll make some more testing with this config and let you know. (Regardless of what the decision is, the test cases need to include all combinations of asis, include, exclude, fromdir, relative basedir, absolute basedir, and omitted basedir.) That would be really nice. Unfortunatelly possible combinations grow with factorial - noone have time to write all those testcases. But I'll try to write a little more of them. Martin --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Aliger Sent: vrijdag 6 mei 2005 11:54 To: 'Gary Feldman'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension Interesting. I think there is an opportunity for optimizing this, to eliminate the asis by changing the synchronization point. For example, if the contents of the foo1 fileset were not computed until actually needed, then you could do away with the asis and apply the exclude. I'm not sure I want change something in such fundamental thing as fileset. Simple extension should be ok, but change some functionality... I dont want change whole NAnt, I just want to contribute small enhancement which I find very useful. Since I dont use asis myself I dont know what for hacks it could be good. To your second note: filesets are computed lazily - that means when they used for first time. There are some issues about it (like creating fileset then deleting some files and wondering why their names are not stored in fileset!). Merge operation is use of fileset, so I explicitelly scan it. Its real need becouse of merging two filesets with distinct basedirs. What happens if you remove the implicit asis that you generate, and instead insert explicit asis attributes into the foo1 fileset? It workes well (except doubling bug 1195736), excludes working. Only issue is that every file from merged fileset is scanned twice. Its not big performance issue, imo, since scan pathed file is just test for file existence. I'll make some more testing with this config and let you know. (Regardless of what the decision is, the test cases need to include all combinations of asis, include, exclude, fromdir, relative basedir, absolute basedir, and omitted basedir.) That would be really nice. Unfortunatelly possible combinations grow with factorial - noone have time to write all those testcases. But I'll try to write a little more of them. I think you should await consensus that this feature is indeed necessary, and as such will end up in NAnt cvs. Gert --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
Martin Aliger wrote: (Regardless of what the decision is, the test cases need to include all combinations of asis, include, exclude, fromdir, relative basedir, absolute basedir, and omitted basedir.) That would be really nice. Unfortunatelly possible combinations grow with factorial - noone have time to write all those testcases. But I'll try to write a little more of them. It's not that many test cases, particularly since you can test different combinations of include within one fileset and you can repeat the contents of the fileset for different basedirs - maybe a dozen or two. In any event, tests aren't optional. Without the tests, you can't be sure of the behavior in these cases, and if you're not sure, it's not ready to ship. Gary --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
I think you should await consensus that this feature is indeed necessary, and as such will end up in NAnt cvs. That is what I'm waiting for. If more test-cases or some fine-tuning (like no 'asis') will be needed, I'll do it. That is also reason why I dont want change alot of things, just extend one feature. I hope, you'll like it. I dont read every message on list, but I saw there already some requests about such functionality. Regards, Martin --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
Hi Gary, as I implemented it, it converts scanned files from first fileset to full path asis includes. So fileset id=foo1 basedir=X:\nant\t1 include name=world.peace / include name=world.war/ /fileset fileset id=foo2 basedir=X:\nant\t1 includesfileset refid=foo1/ exclude name=world.war/ include name=reefer.saddness / /fileset becomes fileset id=foo2 basedir=X:\nant\t1 include asis=true name=X:\nant\t1\world.peace/ include asis=true name=X:\nant\t1\world.war/ exclude name=world.war/ include name=reefer.saddness / /fileset To your question with excludes: - all excludes in foo1 are respected. - no exclude in foo2 take effect on included files. Thats something which is already in place. Excludes do _not_ affect asis includes. It sounds a little strange to me, but I'd rather not change something what is in place for several years. Is this behaviour right? Maybe yes. I think about includesfileset like fileset merging operation - so you merge existing fileset with some include/exclude mask. But I see, there is no way how to filter out existing fileset to another one... So maybe its not right way? Ideas? Note: reason why I used asis is to prevent double-scan. asis includes are not scanned anymore, and all included files via includesfileset was scanned once already. Martin Aliger --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
Martin Aliger wrote: Hi Gary, as I implemented it, it converts scanned files from first fileset to full path asis includes. So fileset id=foo1 basedir=X:\nant\t1 include name=world.peace / include name=world.war/ /fileset fileset id=foo2 basedir=X:\nant\t1 includesfileset refid=foo1/ exclude name=world.war/ include name=reefer.saddness / /fileset becomes fileset id=foo2 basedir=X:\nant\t1 include asis=true name=X:\nant\t1\world.peace/ include asis=true name=X:\nant\t1\world.war/ exclude name=world.war/ include name=reefer.saddness / /fileset To your question with excludes: - all excludes in foo1 are respected. - no exclude in foo2 take effect on included files. Thats something which is already in place. Excludes do _not_ affect asis includes. It sounds a little strange to me, but I'd rather not change something what is in place for several years. Is this behaviour right? Maybe yes. I think about includesfileset like fileset merging operation - so you merge existing fileset with some include/exclude mask. But I see, there is no way how to filter out existing fileset to another one... So maybe its not right way? Ideas? Note: reason why I used asis is to prevent double-scan. asis includes are not scanned anymore, and all included files via includesfileset was scanned once already. Interesting. I think there is an opportunity for optimizing this, to eliminate the asis by changing the synchronization point. For example, if the contents of the foo1 fileset were not computed until actually needed, then you could do away with the asis and apply the exclude. Part of the problem is that asis seems to violate the principle of one method/class/object/parameter should do one thing. It's doing three things: suppressing the existence check, suppressing the application of excludes, and suppressing the pattern matching (in case you were on a file system silly enough to allow asterisks in the file name). I doubt the last is necessary; it could just be poor wording in the documentation. I don't know if there's a justification for suppressing the excludes. What happens if you remove the implicit asis that you generate, and instead insert explicit asis attributes into the foo1 fileset? (Regardless of what the decision is, the test cases need to include all combinations of asis, include, exclude, fromdir, relative basedir, absolute basedir, and omitted basedir.) Gary --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
