>> dependency graph. This can lead to situations where the result is just not
>> well defined. This is what I was trying to get at above. -- [[Will]]
+>>> Hmm, I'm not seeing cycles be a problem, at least with the current
+>>> pagespec terms. --[[Joey]]
+
+>>>> Oh, they're not with current pagespec terms. But this is really close to extending to handle
+>>>> functional pagespecs, etc. And I think I'd like to think about that now.
+>>>>
+>>>> Having said that, I don't want to hold you up - you seem to be making progress. The best is
+>>>> the enemy of the good, etc. etc.
+>>>>
+>>>> For my part, I'm imagining we have two more constructs in IkiWiki:
+>>>>
+>>>> * A map directive that actually wikilinks to the pages it links to, and
+>>>> * A `match_sharedLink(pageX)` matching function that matches pageY if both pageX and pageY each have links to any same third page, pageZ.
+>>>>
+>>>> With those two constructs, one page changing might change the set of pages included in a map somewhere, which might then change the set of pages matched by some other pagespec, which might then...
+>>>>
+>>>> --[[Will]]
+
+>>>>> I think that should be supported by [[bugs/transitive_dependencies]].
+>>>>> At least in the current implementation, which considers each page
+>>>>> that is rendered to be changed, and rebuilds pages that are dependent
+>>>>> on it, in a loop. An alternate implementation, which could be faster,
+>>>>> is to construct a directed graph and traverse it just once. Sounds
+>>>>> like that would probably not support what you want to do.
+>>>>> --[[Joey]]
+
----
### Link dependencies
that currently match it. If the list changes, the dependency is triggered.
Should be doable, but may involve more work than
-currently. Consider that a dependency on "bugs/*" currently
+currently. Consider that a dependency on `bugs/*` currently
is triggered by just checking until *one* page is found to match it.
But to store the list, *every* page would have to be tried against it.
Unless the list can somehow be intelligently updated, looking at only the
> Trying to make a formal definition of this: (Note, I'm using the term sets rather than lists, but they're roughly equivalent)
>
-> * Let the *matching set* for a pagespec be the set of pages that the pagespec matches.
-> * Let a *complete influence set* for a pagespec be the set of all pages whose alteration might change the matching set of that pagespec.
-> * Let the *direct influence set* be the intersection of the matching set and the complete influence set.
-> * Let the *indirect influence set* be the compliment of the direct influence set with respect to the complete influence set.
+> * Let the *matching set* for a pagespec be the set of existing pages that the pagespec matches.
+> * Let a *influence set* for a pagespec be the set of all pages, *p*, whose alteration might:
+> * cause the pagespec to include or exclude a page other than *p*, or
+> * cause the pagespec to exclude *p*.
+>
+>> \[Will snipped some stuff and edited the formal definition]
>
-> Is that a fair definition? I don't think it quite matches your examples below unfortunately.
-> I was unsure if I should insert the word 'existing' in there in a few places. As it stands, these definitions could include sets of pages that don't exist, e.g. "*".
-> The one I'm least sure of is the definition of the direct influence set. It feels like you want something
-> like "the traditional set of things we thought about that could cause a pagespec to change", but that definition
-> is not very formal and I suspect will lead to problems. Something like "The set of pages matched by the globs in the pagespec" might be closer?
> --[[Will]]
+>> I appreciate the formalism!
+>>
+>> Only existing pages need to be in these sets, because if a page is added
+>> in the future, the existing dependency code will always test to see
+>> if it matches. So it will be in the maching set (or not) at that point.
+>>
+>>> Hrm, I agree with you in general, but I think I can come up with nasty counter-examples. What about a pagespec
+>>> of "!backlink(bogus)" where the page bogus doesn't exist? In this case, the page 'bogus' needs to be in the influence
+>>> set even though it doesn't exist.
+>>>
+>>>> I think you're right, this is a case that the current code is not
+>>>> handling. Actually, I made all the pagespecs return influences
+>>>> even if the influence was not present or did not match. But, it
+>>>> currently only records influences as dependencies when a pagespec
+>>>> successfully matches. Now I'm sure that is wrong, and I've removed
+>>>> that false optimisation. I've updated some of the below. --[[Joey]]
+>>>
+>>> Also, I would really like the formalism to include the whole dependency system, not just any additions to it. That will make
+>>> the whole thing much easier to reason about.
+>>
+>> The problem with your definition of direct influence set seems to be
+>> that it doesn't allow `link()` and `title()` to have as an indirect
+>> influence, the page that matches. But I'm quite sure we need those.
+>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> I see what you mean. Does the revised definition capture this effectively?
+>>> The problem with this revised definition is that it still doesn't match your examples below.
+>>> My revised definition will include pretty much all currently matching pages to be in the influence list
+>>> because deletion of any of them would cause a change in which pages are matched - the removal problem.
+>>> -- [[Will]]
+
#### Examples
* The pagespec "created_before(foo)" has an influence list that contains foo.
- The removal or (re)creation of foo changes what pages match it.
+ The removal or (re)creation of foo changes what pages match it. Note that
+ this is true even if the pagespec currently fails to match.
* The pagespec "foo" has an empty influence list. This is because a
modification/creation/removal of foo directly changes what the pagespec
Avoiding including every page in the wiki into its influence list is
very important!
+>>> So, why don't the above influence lists contain the currently matched pages?
+>>> Don't you need this to handle the removal problem? -- [[Will]]
+
+>>>> The removal problem is slightly confusingly named, since it does not
+>>>> affect pages that were matched by a glob and have been removed. Such
+>>>> pages can be handled without being influences, because ikiwiki knows
+>>>> they have been removed, and so can still match them against the
+>>>> pagespec, and see they used to match; and thus knows that the
+>>>> dependency has triggered.
+>>>>
+>>>> Maybe the thing to do is consider this an optimisation, where such
+>>>> pages are influences, but ikiwiki is able to implicitly find them,
+>>>> so they do not need to be explicitly stored. --[[Joey]]
+
* The pagespec "title(foo)" has an influence list that contains every page
that currently matches it. A change to any matching page can change its
- title. Why is that considered an indirect influence? Well, the pagespec
- might be used in a presence dependency, and so its title changing
- would not directly affect the dependency.
+ title, making it not match any more, and so the list is needed due to the
+ removal problem. A page that does not have a matching title is not an
+ influence, because modifying the page to change its title directly
+ changes what the pagespec matches.
* The pagespec "backlink(index)" has an influence list
that contains index (because a change to index changes the backlinks).
+ Note that this is true even if the backlink currently fails.
* The pagespec "link(done)" has an influence list that
contains every page that it matches. A change to any matching page can
>> 'done' to include a link to 'done', then it will now match... or is that considered a
>> 'direct match'? -- [[Will]]
+>>> The regular dependency calculation code will check if every changed
+>>> page matches every dependency. So it will notice the link was added.
+>>> --[[Joey]]
+
#### Low-level Calculation
One way to calculate a pagespec's influence would be to
onto the influence list. If we combine the influences from each
successful match, we get the right result.
-> This is implemented, seems to work ok. --[[Joey]]
+> This is implemented, seems to work ok. --[[Joey]]
-#### High-level Calculation and Storage
+> `or` short-circuits too, but the implementation correctly uses `|`,
+> which I assume is what you meant. --[[smcv]]
+
+>> Er, yeah. --[[Joey]]
+
+----
+
+What about: "!link(done)"
+
+Specifically, I want to make sure it works now that I've changed
+`match_link` to only return a page as an influence if it *does*
+link to done.
+
+So, when matching against page P, that does not link to done,
+there are no influences, and the pagespec matches. If P is later
+changed to add a link to done, then the dependency resolver will directly
+notice that.
-Calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying to match
-it against every page in the wiki.
+When matching against page P, that does link to done, P
+is an influence, and the pagespec does not match. If P is later changed
+to not link to done, the influence will do its job.
+
+Looks good!
+
+----
+
+Here is a case where this approach has some false positives.
+
+"bugs/* and link(patch)"
+
+This finds as influences all pages that link to patch, even
+if they are not under bugs/, and so can never match.
+
+To fix this, the influence calculation would need to consider boolean
+operators. Currently, this turns into roughly:
+
+`FailReason() & SuccessReason(patch)`
+
+Let's say that the glob instead returns a HardFailReason, which when
+ANDed with another object, drops their influences. (But when ORed, combines
+them.) Fixes the above, but does it always work?
+
+"(bugs/* or link(patch)) and backlink(index)" =>
+`( HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(patch) ) & SuccessReason(index)`` =>
+`SuccessReason(patch) & SuccessReason(index)` =>
+SuccessReason(patch, index) => right
+
+"(bugs/* and link(patch)) or backlink(index)" =>
+`( HardFailReason() & SuccessReason(patch) ) | SuccessReason(index)`` =>
+`HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(index)` =>
+`SuccessReason(index)` => right
+
+#### High-level Calculation and Storage
-I'd like to avoid doing such expensive matching redundantly. So add a
-`pagespec_match_all`, which returns a list of all pages in the whole
-wiki that match the pagespec, and also adds the pagespec as a dependency,
-and while it's at it, calculates and stores the influence list.
+Naively calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying
+to match it against every page in the wiki. I'd like to avoid doing such
+expensive matching redundantly.
+
+It may be possible, for some types of pagespecs, to just try matching a
+single, arbitrary page against it, and know the full influence list has
+been obtained. It seems to be that case that if a pagespec has any
+influences, matching any page will return at least one. So if none are
+returned, we can skip trying other pages.
+
+If the influence list does not include the page that was tried, we know
+that the pagespec does not things like `link()` and `title()`, that are
+influenced by the page's own content. So it *might* be safe to not try
+matching any more pages in this case too. I think it would work for all
+current pagespec terms. There might be a hypothetical term where this
+optimisation doesn't work. We could add a special case to ensure it can
+work: If a term declares it is unfluenced by "", then it means it is
+always influenced by the matching page.
+
+Anyway, this seems worth doing: Add a `pagespec_match_all`, which returns a
+list of all pages in the whole wiki that match the pagespec, and also adds
+the pagespec as a dependency, and while it's at it, calculates and stores
+the influence list.
It could have an optional sort parameter, and limit parameter, to control
how many items to return and the sort order. So when inline wants to
> I've implemented influence calculation in `add_depends`. As expected,
> it means rather a lot more work, and makes some things much slower.
-> Optimisation via `pagespec_match_depends` next.. --[[Joey]]
+> Optimisations next.. --[[Joey]]
#### Influence types
> allow significant computational savings, but I suspect will be tricky
> to implement. -- [[Will]]
+>> It was actually really easy to implement it, assuming I picked the right
+>> dependency types of course. --[[Joey]]
sipb-www / ikiwiki.git / blobdiff