qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
	Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] qapi/expr.py: move related checks inside check_xxx functions
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:28:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a6qrtlaa.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9cbaa0fe-d926-84d1-c0e2-f0bffc9cba3b@redhat.com> (John Snow's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2021 01:17:38 -0400")

John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> On 2/25/21 10:28 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> There's not a big obvious difference between the types of checks that
>>> happen in the main function versus the kind that happen in the
>>> functions. Now they're in one place for each of the main types.
>>>
>>> As part of the move, spell out the required and optional keywords so
>>> they're obvious at a glance. Use tuples instead of lists for immutable
>>> data, too.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
>> 
>> No objection to changing read-only lists to tuples (applies to previous
>> patch, too).
>> 
>> No objection to turning positional into keyword arguments where that
>> improves clarity.
>> 
>> I have doubts on the code motion.  Yes, the checks for each type are now
>> together.  On the other hand, the check_keys() are now separate.  I can
>> no longer see all the keys at a glance.
>> 
>
> I guess it depends on where you wanted to see them; I thought it was 
> strange that in check_foobar I couldn't see what foobar's valid keys 
> were without scrolling back to the bottom of the file.
>
> Needing to see all the keys for the disparate forms together was not a 
> case I ran into, but you can always drop this patch for now if you'd 
> like.

Let's shelve it for now.

>       I had some more adventurous patches that keeps pushing in this 
> direction, but I don't know if it's really important.

When I work on a something, I tend to accumulate semi-related cleanups.
Including them is rarely a problem for reviewers when the result is two
dozen patches or so.  When this isn't the case, I can:

* Pick them into a separate cleanup series to go before the real work.
  Risks delaying the real work.

* Funnel them onto a cleanup branch to flushed later.  Risks lonely
  death in a rotting branch.

* Force myself to abstain from improving things that could really use
  improvement.  I call this "sitting on my hands".

This patch is in part three of at least six.  Almost 90 patches up to
part three, with many more to come.  I'm *desperate* to limit scope to
not get overwhelmed.  Please consider the remedies above.  This is a cry
for help, not a demand.

>                                                       My appetite in 
> this area has waned since November.

I understand.



  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-25 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-23  0:33 [PATCH v3 00/16] qapi: static typing conversion, pt3 John Snow
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 01/16] qapi/expr.py: Remove 'info' argument from nested check_if_str John Snow
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 02/16] qapi/expr.py: Check for dict instead of OrderedDict John Snow
2021-02-24  9:30   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 21:23     ` John Snow
2021-02-25 10:40       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 20:04         ` John Snow
2021-03-01 16:48           ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 03/16] qapi/expr.py: constrain incoming expression types John Snow
2021-02-24 10:01   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 21:46     ` John Snow
2021-02-25 11:56       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 20:43         ` John Snow
2021-03-02  5:23           ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 04/16] qapi/expr.py: Add assertion for union type 'check_dict' John Snow
2021-02-24 10:35   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 21:54     ` John Snow
2021-03-24 21:09     ` John Snow
2021-03-25  5:46       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-03-25 19:42         ` John Snow
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 05/16] qapi/expr.py: move string check upwards in check_type John Snow
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 06/16] qapi/expr.py: Check type of 'data' member John Snow
2021-02-24 10:39   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 22:06     ` John Snow
2021-02-25 12:02       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:33 ` [PATCH v3 07/16] qapi/expr.py: Add casts in a few select cases John Snow
2021-02-24 12:32   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 22:24     ` John Snow
2021-02-25 12:07       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 22:10         ` John Snow
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 08/16] qapi/expr.py: add type hint annotations John Snow
2021-02-24 15:27   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-24 22:30     ` John Snow
2021-02-25 12:08       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 13:56   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 20:54     ` John Snow
2021-03-02  5:29       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 09/16] qapi/expr.py: Consolidate check_if_str calls in check_if John Snow
2021-02-25 14:23   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 21:34     ` John Snow
2021-03-02  5:57       ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 10/16] qapi/expr.py: Remove single-letter variable John Snow
2021-02-25 14:03   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-25 21:56     ` John Snow
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 11/16] qapi/expr.py: enable pylint checks John Snow
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 12/16] qapi/expr.py: Add docstrings John Snow
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 13/16] qapi/expr.py: Modify check_keys to accept any Collection John Snow
2021-02-25 15:41   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 14/16] qapi/expr.py: Use tuples instead of lists for static data John Snow
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 15/16] qapi/expr.py: move related checks inside check_xxx functions John Snow
2021-02-25 15:28   ` Markus Armbruster
2021-03-25  5:17     ` John Snow
2021-03-25 13:28       ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
2021-02-23  0:34 ` [PATCH v3 16/16] qapi/expr.py: Use an expression checker dispatch table John Snow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87a6qrtlaa.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org \
    --to=armbru@redhat.com \
    --cc=crosa@redhat.com \
    --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).