Ikiwiki currently only has one type of dependency between pages
(plus wikilinks special cased in on the side). This has resulted in various
problems, and it's seemed for a long time to me that ikiwiki needs to get
smarter about what types of dependencies are supported.
unnecessary work
The current single dependency type causes the depending page to be rebuilt
whenever a matching dependency is added, removed, or modified. But a
great many things don't care about the modification case, and often cause
unnecessary page rebuilds:
- map only cares if the pages are added or removed. Content change does
not matter (unless show=title is used).
- brokenlinks, orphans, pagecount, ditto (generally)
- inline in archive mode cares about page title, author changing, but
not content. (Ditto for meta with show=title.)
- Causes extra work when solving the [[bugs/transitive_dependencies]]
problem.
two types of dependencies needed for [[tracking_bugs_with_dependencies]]
it seems that there are two types of dependency, and ikiwiki
currently only handles one of them. The first type is "Rebuild this
page when any of these other pages changes" - ikiwiki handles this.
The second type is "rebuild this page when set of pages referred to by
this pagespec changes" - ikiwiki doesn't seem to handle this. I
suspect that named pagespecs would make that second type of dependency
more important. I'll try to come up with a good example. -- [[Will]]
Hrm, I was going to build an example of this with backlinks, but it
looks like that is handled as a special case at the moment (line 458 of
render.pm). I'll see if I can breapk
things another way. Fixing this properly would allow removal of that special case. -- [[Will]]
I can't quite understand the distinction you're trying to draw
between the two types of dependencies. Backlinks are a very special
case though and I'll be suprised if they fit well into pagespecs.
--[[Joey]]
The issue is that the existential pagespec matching allows you to build things that have similar
problems to backlinks.
e.g. the following inline:
\[[!inline pages="define(~done, link(done)) and link(~done)" archive=yes]]
includes any page that links to a page that links to done. Now imagine I add a new link to 'done' on
some random page somewhere - a page which some other page links to which didn't previously get included - the set of pages accepted by the pagespec, and hence the set of
pages inlined, will change. But, there is no dependency anywhere on the page that I altered, so
ikiwiki will not rebuild the page with the inline in it. What is happening is that the page that I altered affects
the set of pages matched by the pagespec without itself being matched by the pagespec, and hence included in the dependency list.
To make this work well, I think you need to recognise two types of dependencies for each page (and no
special cases for particular types of links, eg backlinks). The first type of dependency says, "The content of
this page depends upon the content of these other pages". The add_depends() in the shortcuts
plugin is of this form: any time the shortcuts page is edited, any page with a shortcut on it
is rebuilt. The inline plugin also needs to add dependencies of this form to detect when the inlined
content changes. By contrast, the map plugin does not need a dependency of this form, because it
doesn't actually care about the content of any pages, just which pages it needs to include (which we'll handle next).
The second type of dependency says, "The content of this page depends upon the exact set of pages matched
by this pagespec". The first type of dependency was about the content of some pages, the second type is about
which pages get matched by a pagespec. This is the type of dependency tracking that the map plugin needs.
If the set of pages matched by map pagespec changes, then the page with the map on it needs to be rebuilt to show a different list of pages.
Inline needs this type of dependency as well as the previous type - This type handles a change in which pages
are inlined, the previous type handles a change in the content of any of those pages. Shortcut does not need this type of
dependency. Most of the places that use add_depends() seem to need this type of dependency rather than the first type.
Note that inline and map currently achieve the second type of dependency by
explicitly calling add_depends for each page the displayed.
If any of those pages are removed, the regular pagespec would not
match them -- since they're gone. However, the explicit dependency
on them does cause them to match. It's an ugly corner I'd like to
get rid of. --[[Joey]]
Implementation Details: The first type of dependency can be handled very similarly to the current
dependency system. You just need to keep a list of pages that the content depends upon. You could
keep that list as a pagespec, but if you do this you might want to check that the pagespec doesn't change,
possibly by adding a dependency of the second type along with the dependency of the first type.
An example of the current system not tracking enough data is
described in [[bugs/transitive_dependencies]].
--[[Joey]]
The second type of dependency is a little more tricky. For each page, we'd need a list of pagespecs that
the page depended on, and for each pagespec you'd want to store the list of pages that currently match it.
On refresh, you'd need to check each pagespec to see if the set of pages that match it has changed, and if
that set has changed, then rebuild the dependent page(s). Oh, and for this second type of dependency, I
don't think you can merge pagespecs. If I wanted to know if either "*" or "link(done)" changes, then just checking
to see if the set of pages matched by "* or link(done)" changes doesn't work.
The current system works because even though you usually want dependencies of the second type, the set of pages
referred to by a pagespec can only change if one of those pages itself changes. i.e. A dependency check of the
first type will catch a dependency change of the second type with current pagespecs.
This doesn't work with backlinks, and it doesn't work with existential matching. Backlinks are currently special-cased. I don't know
how to special-case existential matching - I suspect you're better off just getting the dependency tracking right.
I also tried to come up with other possible solutions: e.g. can we find the dependencies for a pagespec? That
would be the set of pages where a change on one of those pages could lead to a change in the set of pages matched by the pagespec.
For old-style pagespecs without backlinks, the dependency set for a pagespec is the same as the set of pages the pagespec matches.
Unfortunately, with existential matching, the set of pages that each
pagespec depends upon can quickly become "*", which is not very useful. -- [[Will]]
proposal
I propose the following. --[[Joey]]
- Add a second type of dependency, call it an "presence dependency".
add_depends defaults to adding a regular ("full") dependency, as
before. (So nothing breaks.)add_depends($page, $spec, presence => 0) adds an presence dependency.refresh only looks at added/removed pages when resolving presence
dependencies.
This seems straightforwardly doable. I'd like [[Will]]'s feedback on it, if
possible. The type types of dependencies I am proposing are not identical
to the two types he talks about above, but I hope are close enough that
they can be used.
This doesn't deal with the stuff that only depend on the metadata of a
page, as collected in the scan pass, changing. But it does leave a window
open for adding such a dependency type later.
I implemented the above in a branch.
[[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/dependency-types author="[[joey]]"]]
Then I found some problems:
- Something simple like pagecount, that seems like it could use a
presence dependency, can have a pagespec that uses metadata, like
author() or copyright().
- pagestats, orphans and brokenlinks cannot use presence dependencies
because they need to update when links change.
Now I'm thinking about having a special dependency look at page
metadata, and fire if the metadata changes. And it seems links should
either be included in that, or there should be a way to make a dependency
that fires when a page's links change. (And what about backlinks?)
It's easy to see when a page's links change, since there is %oldlinks.
To see when metadata is changed is harder, since it's stored in the
pagestate by the meta plugin. Also, there are many different types of
metadata, that would need to be matched with the pagespecs somehow.
Quick alternative: Make add_depends look at the pagespec. Ie, if it
is a simple page name, or a glob, we know a presence dependency
can be valid. If's more complex, convert the dependency from
presence to full.
There is a lot to dislike about this method. Its parsing of the pagespec,
as currently implemented, does not let plugins add new types of pagespecs
that only care about presence. Its pagespec parsing is also subject to
false negatives (though these should be somewhat rare, and no false
positives). Still, it does work, and it makes things like simple maps and
pagecounts much more efficient.
Will's first pass feedback.
If the API is going to be updated, then it would be good to make it forward compatible.
I'd like for the API to be extendible to what is useful for complex pagespecs, even if we
that is a little redundant at the moment.
My attempt to play with this is in my git repo. [[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/depends-spec author="[[will]]"]]
That branch is a little out of date, but if you just look at the changes in IkiWiki.pm you'll see the concept I was looking at.
I added an "add_depends_spec()" function that adds a dependency on the pagespec passed to it. If the set of matched pages
changes, then the dependent page is rebuilt. At the moment the implementation uses the same hack used by map and inline -
just add all the pages that currently exist as traditional content dependencies.
As I note below, a problem with this approach is that it has to try
matching the pagespec against every page, redundantly with the work done
by the plugin. (But there are ways to avoid that redundant matching.)
--[[Joey]]
Getting back to commenting on your proposal:
Just talking about the definition of a "presence dependency" for the moment, and ignoring implementation. Is a
"presence dependency" supposed to cause an update when a page disappears? I assume so. Is a presence dependency
supposed to cause an update when a pages existence hasn't changed, but it no longer matches the pagespec.
(e.g. you use created_before(test_page) in a pagespec, and there was a page, new_page, that was created
after test_page. new_page will not match the spec. Now we'll delete and then re-create test_page. Now
new_page will match the spec, and yet new_page itself hasn't changed. Nor has its 'presence' - it was present
before and it is present now. Should this cause a re-build of any page that has a 'presence' dependency on the spec?
Yes, a presence dep will trigger when a page is added, or removed.
Your example is valid.. but it's also not handled right by normal,
(content) dependencies, for the same reasons. Still, I think I've
addressed it with the pagespec influence stuff below. --[[Joey]]
I think that is another version of the problem you encountered with meta-data.
In the longer term I was thinking we'd have to introduce a concept of 'internal pagespec dependencies'. Note that I'm
defining 'internal' pagespec dependencies differently to the pagespec dependencies I defined above. Perhaps an example:
If you had a pagespec that was created_before(test_page), then you could list all pages created before test_page
with a map directive. The map directive would add a pagespec dependency on created_before(test_page).
Internally, there would be a second page-spec parsing function that discovers which pages a given pagespec
depends on. As well as the function match_created_before(), we'd have to add a new function depend_created_before().
This new function would return a list of pages, which when any of them change, the output of match_created_before()
would change. In this example, it would just return test_page.
These lists of dependent pages could just be concatenated for every match_...() function in a pagespec - you can ignore
the boolean formula aspects of the pagespec for this. If a content dependency were added on these pages, then I think
the correct rebuilds would occur.
In all, this is a surprisingly difficult problem to solve perfectly. Consider the following case:
PageA.mdwn:
[ShavesSelf]
PageB.mdwn
Doesn't shave self.
ShavedByBob.mdwn:
[!include pages="!link(ShavesSelf)"]
Does ShavedByBob.mdwn include itself?
(Yeah - in IkiWiki currently links are not included by include, but the idea holds. I had a good example a while back, but I can't think of it right now.)
sigh.
-- [[Will]]
I have also been thinking about some sort of analysis pass over pagespecs
to determine what metadata, pages, etc they depend on. It is indeed
tricky to do. More thoughts on influence lists a bit below. --[[Joey]]
The big part of what makes this tricky is that there may be cycles in the
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
add_depends($page, $spec, links => 1, presence => 1)
adds a links + presence dependency.- Use backlinks change code to detect changes to link dependencies too.
- So, brokenlinks can fire whenever any links in any of the
pages it's tracking change, or when pages are added or
removed.
- To determine if a pagespec is valid to be used with a links dependency,
use the same set that are valid for presence dependencies. But also
allow
backlinks() to be used in it, since that matches pages
that the page links to, which is just what link dependencies are
triggered on.
[[done]]
the removal problem
So far I have not addressed fixing the removal problem (which Will
discusses above).
Summary of problem: A has a dependency on a pagespec such as
"bugs/* and !link(done)". B currently matches. Then B is updated,
in a way that makes A's dependency not match it (ie, it links to done).
Now A is not updated, because ikiwiki does not realize that it
depended on B before.
This was worked around to fix [[bugs/inline_page_not_updated_on_removal]]
by inline and map adding explicit dependencies on each page that appears
on them. Then a change to B triggers the explicit dep. While this works,
it's 1) ugly 2) probably not implemented by all plugins that could
be affected by this problem (ie, linkmap) and 3) is most of the reason why
we grew the complication of depends_simple.
One way to fix this is to include with each dependency, a list of pages
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
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
changed pages.
Found a further complication in presence dependencies. Map now uses
presence dependencies when adding its explicit dependencies on pages. But
this defeats the purpose of the explicit dependencies! Because, now,
when B is changed to not match a pagespec, the A's presence dep does
not fire.
I didn't think things through when switching it to use presence
dependencies there. But, if I change it to use full dependencies, then all
the work that was done to allow map to use presence dependencies for its
main pagespec is for naught. The map will once again have to update
whenever any content of the page changes.
This points toward the conclusion that explicit dependencies, however they
are added, are not the right solution at all. Some other approach, such as
maintaining the list of pages that match a dependency, and noticing when it
changes, is needed.
pagespec influence lists
I'm using this term for the concept of a list of pages whose modification
can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches.
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 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]
--[[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. 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
matches.
-
The pagespec "*" has an empty influence list, for the same reason.
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, 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
remove a link and make it not match any more, and so the list is needed
due to the removal problem.
Why doesn't this include every page? If I change a page that doesn't have a link to
'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
expand the SuccessReason and FailReason objects used and returned
by pagespec_match. Make the objects be created with an
influence list included, and when the objects are ANDed or ORed
together, combine the influence lists.
That would have the benefit of allowing just using the existing match_*
functions, with minor changes to a few of them to gather influence info.
But does it work? Let's try some examples:
Consider "bugs/* and link(done) and backlink(index)".
Its influence list contains index, and it contains all pages that the whole
pagespec matches. It should, ideally, not contain all pages that link
to done. There are a lot of such pages, and only a subset influence this
pagespec.
When matching this pagespec against a page, the link will put the page
on the list. The backlink will put index on the list, and they will be
anded together and combined. If we combine the influences from each
successful match, we get the right result.
Now consider "bugs/* and link(done) and !backlink(index)".
It influence list is the same as the previous one, even though a term has
been negated. Because a change to index still influences it, though in a
different way.
If negation of a SuccessReason preserves the influence list, the right
influence list will be calculated.
Consider "bugs/* and (link(done) or backlink(index))"
and "bugs/* and (backlink(index) or link(done))'
Its clear that the influence lists for these are identical. And they
contain index, plus all matching pages.
When matching the first against page P, the link will put P on the list.
The OR needs to be a non-short-circuiting type. (In perl, or, not || --
so, pagespec_translate will need to be changed to not use ||.)
Given that, the backlink will always be evalulated, and will put index
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]]
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.
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(page) ) & SuccessReason(index)`` => SuccessReason(page & SuccessReason(index)` =>
SuccessReason(page, index) => right
"(bugs/* and link(patch)) or backlink(index)" =>
( HardFailReason() & SuccessReason(page) ) | SuccessReason(index)`` => HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(index)=>SuccessReason(index)` => right
"!bugs/* and link(patch)" =>
HardFailReason() | SuccessReason(bugs/foo) =>
HardFailReason() => right
High-level Calculation and Storage
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
display the 10 newest, only the influence lists for those ten are added.
If pagespec_match_depends can be used by all plugins, then great,
influences are automatically calculated, no extra work needs to be done.
If not, and some plugins still need to use pagespec_match_list or
pagespec_match, and add_depends, then I guess that add_depends can do
a slightly more expensive influence calculation.
Bonus: If add_depends is doing an influence calculation, then I can remove
the nasty hack it currently uses to decide if a given pagespec is safe to use
with an existence or links dependency.
Where to store the influence list? Well, it appears that we can just add
(content) dependencies for each item on the list, to the page's
regular list of simple dependencies. So, the data stored ends up looking
just like what is stored today by the explicit dependency hacks. Except,
it's calculated more smartly, and is added automatically.
I've implemented influence calculation in add_depends. As expected,
it means rather a lot more work, and makes some things much slower.
Optimisations next.. --[[Joey]]
Influence types
Note that influences can also have types, same as dependency types.
For example, "backlink(foo)" has an influence of foo, of type links.
"created_before(foo)" also is influenced by foo, but it's a presence
type. Etc.
This is an interesting concept that I hadn't considered. It might
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]]
