Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: parse generate property in sdf #143
feat: parse generate property in sdf #143
Changes from 10 commits
af60a6f
655b17a
3faa139
94ff54a
131472b
b8f91bf
426ca94
e16eb2e
eff44b1
01f01f2
7e19d3f
301f506
49950a0
58531e9
8fa3b3d
b06fdd1
1cd1fe1
659218f
53c0785
b02e6ee
caa8deb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change introduced a new type (pathSlice), a new closure (checkConflict), four new slices (rest, copies, generates, globs), copy & pastes the new checkConflict(old, new) logic three different times, duplicates a N^N loop, not to mention it re-appends a large slice to another large slice every iteration of the loop. Indeed does that to three slices on the other case below.
This is not an improvement. This logic needs tuning and I can see that you understand why, but can we please go back to the original state and fix the problem there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree, it was very messy and did a lot of copying information around that we were essentially duplicating. I was struggling to find a way to organize it so that it is clear when reading the code, which was something that did not happen in the past, but now, between the new comments and the new logic, I think I am finally happy that it is good enough (it will never be perfect). Please look at the PR diff and tell me what you think, there is still room for performance improvements, that is for sure, but I don't think it is necessary now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems okay for now, but it's a bit unclear what the final place should be, due to the potential automatic manifest inclusion which could make this be better placed elsewhere.