[[!tag patch patch/core]]
I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so on several wikis. However, as far as I can tell, ikiwiki has no functionality which can represent dependencies between bugs and allow pagespecs to select based on dependencies. For instance, I can't write a pagespec which selects all bugs with no dependencies on bugs not marked as done. --[[JoshTriplett]]
I started having a think about this. I'm going to start with the idea that expanding
the pagespec syntax is the way to attack this. It seems that any pagespec that is going
to represent "all bugs with no dependencies on bugs not marked as done" is going to
need some way to represent "bugs not marked as done" as a collection of pages, and
then represent "bugs which do not link to pages in the previous collection".
One way to do this would be to introduce variables into the pagespec, along with
universal and/or existential [[!wikipedia Quantification]]. That looks quite complex.
I thought about this briefly, and got about that far.. glad you got
further. :-) --[[Joey]]
Or, one [[!taglink could_also_refer|pagespec_in_DL_style]] to the language of [[!wikipedia description logics]]: their formulas actually define classes of objects through quantified relations to other classes. --Ivan Z.
Another option would be go with a more functional syntax. The concept here would
be to allow a pagespec to appear in a 'pagespec function' anywhere a page can. e.g.
I could pass a pagespec to link() and that would return true if there is a link to any
page matching the pagespec. This makes the variables and existential quantification
implicit. It would allow the example requested above:
bugs/* and !*/Discussion and !link(bugs/* and !*/Discussion and !link(done))
Unfortunately, this is also going to make the pagespec parsing more complex because
we now need to parse nested sets of parentheses to know when the nested pagespec
ends, and that isn't a regular language (we can't use regular expression matching for
easy parsing).
Also, it may cause ambiguities with page names that contain parens
(though some such ambigutities already exist with the pagespec syntax).
One simplification of that would be to introduce some pagespec [[shortcuts]]. We could
then allow pagespec functions to take either pages, or named pagespec shortcuts. The
pagespec shortcuts would just be listed on a special page, like current [[shortcuts]].
(It would probably be a good idea to require that shortcuts on that page can only refer
to named pagespecs higher up that page than themselves. That would stop some
looping issues...) These shortcuts would be used as follows: when trying to match
a page (without globs) you look to see if the page exists. If it does then you have a
match. If it doesn't, then you look to see if a similarly named pagespec shortcut
exists. If it does, then you check that pagespec recursively to see if you have a match.
The ordering requirement on named pagespecs stops infinite recursion.
Does that seem like a reasonable first approach?
-- [[Will]]
Having a separate page for the shortcuts feels unwieldly.. perhaps
instead the shortcut could be defined earlier in the scope of the same
pagespec that uses it?
Example: define(~bugs, bugs/* and !*/Discussion) and define(~openbugs, ~bugs and !link(done)) and ~openbugs and !link(~openbugs)
That could work. parens are only ever nested 1 deep in that grammar so it is regular and the current parsing would be ok.
Note that I made the "~" explicit, not implicit, so it could be left out. In the case of ambiguity between
a definition and a page name, the definition would win.
That was my initial thought too :), but when implementing it I decided that requiring the ~ made things easier. I'll probably require the ~ for the first pass at least.
So, equivilant example: define(bugs, bugs/* and !*/Discussion) and define(openbugs, bugs and !link(done)) and openbugs and !link(openbugs)
Re recursion, it is avoided.. but building a pagespec that is O(N^X) where N is the
number of pages in the wiki is not avoided. Probably need to add DOS prevention.
--[[Joey]]
If you memoize the outcomes of the named pagespecs you can make in O(N.X), no?
-- [[Will]]
Yeah, guess that'd work. :-)
One quick further thought. All the above discussion assumes that 'dependency' is the
same as 'links to', which is not really true. For example, you'd like to be able to say
"This bug does not depend upon [ [ link to other bug ] ]" and not have a dependency.
Without having different types of links, I don't see how this would be possible.
-- [[Will]]
I saw that this issue is targeted at by the work on [[structured page data#another_kind_of_links]]. --Ivan Z.
Okie - I've had a quick attempt at this. Initial patch attached. This one doesn't quite work.
And there is still a lot of debugging stuff in there.
At the moment I've added a new preprocessor plugin, definepagespec, which is like
shortcut for pagespecs. To reference a named pagespec, use ~ like this:
[ [!definepagespec name="bugs" spec="bugs/* and !*/Discussion"]]
[ [!definepagespec name="openbugs" spec="~bugs and !link(done)"]]
[ [!definepagespec name="readybugs" spec="~openbugs and !link(~openbugs)"]]
At the moment the problem is in match_link() when we're trying to find a sub-page that
matches the appropriate page spec. There is no good list of pages available to iterate over.
foreach my $nextpage (keys %IkiWiki::pagesources)
does not give me a good list of pages. I found the same thing when I was working on
this todo [[todo/Add_a_plugin_to_list_available_pre-processor_commands]].
I'm not sure why iterating over %pagesources wouldn't work here, it's the same method
used by anything that needs to match a pagespec against all pages..? --[[Joey]]
My uchecked hypothesis is that %pagesources is created after the refresh hook.
I've also been concerned about how globally defined pagespec shortcuts would interact with
the page dependancy system. Your idea of internally defined shortcuts should fix that. -- [[Will]]
You're correct, the refresh hook is run very early, before pagesources
is populated. (It will be partially populated on a refresh, but will
not be updated to reflect new pages.) Agree that internally defined
seems the way to go. --[[Joey]]
Immediately below is a patch which seems to basically work. Lots of debugging code is still there
and it needs a cleanup, but I thought it worth posting at this point. (I was having problems
with old style glob lists, so i just switched them off for the moment.)
The following three inlines work for me with this patch:
Bugs:
[ [!inline pages="define(~bugs, bugs/* and ! */Discussion) and ~bugs" archive="yes"]]
OpenBugs:
[ [!inline pages="define(~bugs, bugs/* and ! */Discussion) and define(~openbugs,~bugs and !link(done)) and ~openbugs" archive="yes"]]
ReadyBugs:
[ [!inline pages="define(~bugs, bugs/* and ! */Discussion) and define(~openbugs,~bugs and !link(done)) and define(~readybugs,~openbugs and !link(~openbugs)) and ~readybugs" archive="yes"]]
Nice! Could the specfuncsref be passed in %params? I'd like to avoid
needing to change the prototype of every pagespec function, since several
plugins define them too. --[[Joey]]
Maybe - it needs more thought. I also considered it when I was going though changing all those plugins :).
My concern was that %params can contain other user-defined parameters,
e.g. link(target, otherparameter), and that means that the specFuncs could be clobbered by a user (or other
weird security hole). I thought it better to separate it, but I didn't think about it too hard. I might move it to
the first parameter rather than the second. Ikiwiki is my first real perl hacking and I'm still discovering
good ways to write things in perl.
%params contains the parameters passed to pagespec_match, not
user-supplied parameters. The user-supplied parameter to a function
like match_glob() or match_link() is passed in the second positional parameter. --[[Joey]]
OK. That seems reasonable then. The only problem is that my PERLfu is not strong enough to make it
work. I really have to wonder what substance was influencing the designers of PERL...
I can't figure out how to use the %params. And I'm pissed off enough with PERL that I'm not going
to try and figure it out any more. There are two patches below now. The first one uses an extra
argument and works. The second one tries to use %params and doesn't - take your pick :-). -- [[Will]]
What do you think is best to do about is_globlist()? At the moment it requires that the 'second word', as
delimited by a space and ignoring parens, is 'and' or 'or'. This doesn't hold in the above example pagespecs (so I just hard wired it to 0 to test my patch).
My thought was just to search for 'and' or 'or' as words anywhere in the pagespec. Thoughts?
Dunno, we could just finish deprecating it. Or change the regexp to
skip over spaces in parens. (/[^\s]+\s+([^)]+)/) --[[Joey]]
I think I have a working regexp now.
Oh, one more thing. In pagespec_translate (now pagespec_makeperl), there is a part of the regular expression for # any other text.
This contained (), which has no effect. I replaced that with \(\), but that is a change in the definition of pagespecs unrelated to the
rest of this patch. In a related change, commands were not able to contain ) in their parameters. I've extended that so the cannot
contain ( or ). -- [[Will]]
[^\s()]+ is a character class matching all characters not spaces or
parens. Since the pervious terminals in the regexp consume most
occurances of an open paren or close paren, it's unlikely for one to
get through to that part of the regexp. For example, "foo()" will be
matched by the command matcher; "(foo)" will be matched by the open
paren literal terminal. "foo(" and "foo)" can get through to the
end, and would be matched as a page name, if it didn't exclude parens.
So why exclude them? Well, consider "foo and(bar and baz)". We don't
want it to match "and(" as a page name!
Escaping the parens in the character class actually changes nothing; the
changed character class still matches all characters not spaces or
parens. (Try it!).
Re commands containing '(', I don't really see any reason not to
allow that, unless it breaks something. --[[Joey]]
Oh, I didn't realise you didn't need to escape parens inside []. All else I
I understood. I have stopped commands from containing parens because
once you allow that then you might have a extra level of depth in the parsing
of define() statements. -- [[Will]]
Updated patch. Moved the specFuncsRef to the front of the arg list. Still haven't thought through the security implications of
having it in %params. I've also removed all the debugging print statements. And I've updated the is_globlist() function.
I think this is ready for people other than me to have a play. It is not well enough tested to commit just yet.
-- [[Will]]
I've lost track of the indent level, so I'm going back to not indented - I think this is a working [[patch]] taking into
account all comments above (which doesn't mean it is above reproach :) ). --[[Will]]
Very belated code review of last version of the patch:
is_globlist is no longer needed
Good :)
- I don't understand why the pagespec match regexp is changed
from having flags
igx to ixgs. Don't see why you
want . to match '\nin it, and don't see any.` in the regexp
anyway?
Because you have to define all the named pagespecs in the pagespec, you sometimes end up with very long pagespecs. I found it useful to split them over multiple lines. That didn't work at one point and I added the 's' to make it work. I may have further altered the regex since then to make the 's' redundant. Remove it and see if multi-line pagespecs still work. :)
Well, I can tell you that multi-line pagespecs are supported w/o
your patch .. I use them all the time. The reason I find your
use of /s unlikely is because without it \s already matches
a newline. Only if you want to treat a newline as non-whitespace
is /s typically necessary. --[[Joey]]
- Some changes of
@_ to %params in pagespec_makeperl do not
make sense to me. I don't see where %params is defined and populated,
except with \$params{specFunc}.
I'm not a perl hacker. This was a mighty battle for me to get going.
There is probably some battlefield carnage from my early struggles
learning perl left here. Part of this is that @_ / @params already
existed as a way of passing in extra parameters. I didn't want to
pollute that top level namespace - just at my own parameter (a hash)
which contained the data I needed.
I think I understand how the various %params
(there's not just one) work in your code now, but it's really a mess.
Explaining it in words would take pages.. It could be fixed by,
in pagespec_makeperl something like:
my %specFuncs;
push @_, specFuncs => %specFuncs;
With that you have the hash locally available for populating
inside pagespec_makeperl, and when the match_* functions
are called the same hash data will be available inside their
@_ or %params. No need to change how the functions are called
or do any of the other hacks.
Currently, specFuncs is populated by building up code
that recursively calls pagespec_makeperl, and is then
evaluated when the pagespec gets evaluated. My suggested
change to %params will break that, but that had to change
anyway.
It probably has a security hole, and is certianly inviting
one, since the pagespec definition is matched by a loose regexp (.*)
and then subject to string interpolation before being evaluated
inside perl code. I recently changed ikiwiki to never interpolate
user-supplied strings when translating pagespecs, and that
needs to happen here too. The obvious way, it seems to me,
is to not generate perl code, but just directly run perl code that
populates specFuncs.
I don't think this is as bad as you make out, but your addition of the
data array will break with the recursion my patch adds in pagespec_makeperl.
To fix that I'll need to pass a reference to that array into pagespec_makeperl.
I think I can then do the same thing to $params{specFuncs}. -- [[Will]]
You're right -- I did not think the recursive case through.
--[[Joey]]
- Seems that the only reason
match_glob has to check for ~ is
because when a named spec appears in a pagespec, it is translated
to match_glob("~foo"). If, instead, pagespec_makeperl checked
for named specs, it could convert them into check_named_spec("foo")
and avoid that ugliness.
Yeah - I wanted to make named specs syntactically different on my first pass. You are right in that this could be made a fallback - named specs always override pagenames.
- The changes to
match_link seem either unecessary, or incomplete.
Shouldn't it check for named specs and call
check_named_spec_existential?
An earlier version did. Then I realised it wasn't actually needed in that case - match_link() already included a loop that was like a type of existential matching. Each time through the loop it would
call match_glob(). match_glob() in turn will handle the named spec. I tested this version briefly and it seemed to work. I remember looking at this again later and wondering if I had mis-understood
some of the logic in match_link(), which might mean there are cases where you would need an explicit call to check_named_spec_existential() - I never checked it properly after having that thought.
In the common case, match_link does not call match_glob,
because the link target it is being asked to check for is a single
page name, not a glob.
A named pagespec should fall into the glob case. These two pagespecs should be the same:
link(a*)
and
define(aStar, a*) and link(~aStar)
In the first case, we want the pagespec to match any page that links to a page matching the glob.
In the second case, we want the pagespec to match any page that links to a page matching the named spec.
match_link() was already doing existential part. The patches to this code were simply to remove the lc()
call from the named pagespec name. Can that lc be removed entirely? -- [[Will]]
I think we could get rid of it. bestlink will lc it itself
if the uppercase version does not exist; match_glob matches
insensitively.
--[[Joey]]
- Generally, the need to modify
match_* functions so that they
check for and handle named pagespecs seems suboptimal, if
only because there might be others people may want to use named
pagespecs with. It would be possible to move this check
to pagespec_makeperl, by having it check if the parameter
passed to a pagespec function looked like a named pagespec.
The only issue is that some pagespec functions take a parameter
that is not a page name at all, and it could be weird
if such a parameter were accidentially interpreted as a named
pagespec. (But, that seems unlikely to happen.)
Possibly. I'm not sure which I prefer between the current solution and that one. Each have advantages and disadvantages.
It really isn't much code for the match functions to add a call to check_named_spec_existential().
But if a plugin adds its own match function, it has
to explicitly call that code to support named pagespecs.
Yes, and it can do that in just three lines of code. But if we automatically check for named pagespecs all the time we
potentially break any matching function that doesn't accept pages, or wants to use multiple arguments.
3 lines of code, plus the functions called become part of the API,
don't forget about that..
Yes, I think that is the tradeoff, the question is whether to export
the additional complexity needed for that flexability.
I'd be suprised if multiple argument pagespecs become necessary..
with the exception of this patch there has been no need for them yet.
There are lots of pagespecs that take data other than pages,
indeed, that's really the common case. So far, none of them
seem likely to take data that starts with a ~. Perhaps
the thing to do would be to check if ~foo is a known,
named pagespec, and if not, just pass it through unchanged.
Then there's little room for ambiguity, and this also allows
pagespecs like glob(~foo*) to match the literal page ~foo.
(It will make pagespec_merge even harder tho.. see below.)
--[[Joey]]
I've already used multi-argument pagespec match functions in
my data plugin. It is used for having different types of links. If
you want to have multiple types of links, then the match function
for them needs to take both the link name and the link type.
I'm trying to think of a way we could have both - automatically
handle the existential case unless the function indicates somehow
that it'll do it itself. Any ideas? -- [[Will]]
- I need to check if your trick to avoid infinite recursion
works if there are two named specs that recursively
call one-another. I suspect it does, but will test this
myself..
It worked for me. :)
- I also need to verify if memoizing the named pagespecs has
really guarded against very expensive pagespecs DOSing the wiki..
--[[Joey]]
There is one issue that I've been thinking about that I haven't raised anywhere (or checked myself), and that is how this all interacts with page dependencies.
Firstly, I'm not sure anymore that the pagespec_merge function will continue to work in all cases.
The problem I can see there is that if two pagespecs
get merged and both use ~foo but define it differently,
then the second definition might be used at a point when
it shouldn't (but I haven't verified that really happens).
That could certianly be a show-stopper. --[[Joey]]
I think this can happen in the new closure based code. I don't think this could happen in the old code. -- [[Will]]
Even if that works, this is a good argument for having a syntactic difference between named pagespecs and normal pages.
If you're joining two pagespecs with 'or', you don't want a named pagespec in the first part overriding a page name in the
second part. Oh, and I assume 'or' has the right operator precedence that "a and b or c" is "(a and b) or c", and not "a and (b or c)" -- [[Will]]
Looks like its bracketed in the code anyway... -- [[Will]]
Perhaps the thing to do is to have a clear_defines()
function, then merging A and B yields (A) or (clear_defines() and (B))
That would deal with both the cases where A and B differently
define ~foo as well as with the case where A defines ~foo while
B uses it to refer to a literal page.
--[[Joey]]
I don't think this will work with the new patch, and I don't think it was needed with the old one.
Under the old patch, pagespec_makeperl() generated a string of unevaluated, self-contained, perl
code. When a new named pagespec was defined, a recursive call was made to get the perl code
for the pagespec, and then that code was used to add something like $params{specFuncs}->{name} = sub {recursive code} and
to the result of the calling function. This means that at pagespec testing time, when this code is executed, the
specFuncs hash is built up as the pagespec is checked. In the case of the 'or' used above, later redefinitions of
a named pagespec would have redefined the specFunc at the right time. It should have just worked. However...
Since my original patch, you started using closures for security reasons (and I can see the case for that). Unfortunately this
means that the generated perl code is no longer self-contained - it needs to be evaluated in the same closure it was generated
so that it has access to the data array. To make this work with the recursive call I had two options: a) make the data array a
reference that I pass around through the pagespec_makeperl() functions and have available when the code is finally evaluated
in pagespec_translate(), or b) make sure that each pagespec is evaluated in its correct closure and a perl function is returned, not a
string containing unevaluated perl code.
I went with option b). I did it in such a way that the hash of specfuncs is built up at translation time, not at execution time. This
means that with the new code you can call specfuncs that get defined out of order:
~test and define(~test, blah)
but it also means that using a simple 'or' to join two pagespecs wont work. If you do something like this:
~test and define(~test, foo) and define(~test, baz)
then the last definition (baz) takes precedence.
In the process of writing this I think I've come up with a way to change this back the way it was, still using closures. -- [[Will]]
Alternatively, my [[remove-pagespec-merge|should_optimise_pagespecs]]
branch solves this, in a Gordian knot sort of way :-) --[[smcv]]
Secondly, 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
where A inlines B which inlines C. A change to C will cause B to
rebuild, but A will not "notice" that B has implicitly changed.
That example suggests it might be fixable without explicitly storing
data, by causing a rebuild of B to be treated as a change to B.
--[[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]]
Patch updated to use closures rather than inline generated code for named pagespecs. Also includes some new use of ErrorReason where appropriate. -- [[Will]]
- Perl really doesn't need forward declarations, honest!
It complained (warning, not error) when I didn't use the forward declaration. :(
- I have doubts about memoizing the anonymous sub created by
pagespec_translate.
This is there explicitly to make sure that runtime is polynomial and not exponential.
- Think where you wrote
+{} you can just write {}
Possibly :) -- [[Will]]
diff --git a/IkiWiki.pm b/IkiWiki.pm
index 061a1c6..1e78a63 100644
--- a/IkiWiki.pm
+++ b/IkiWiki.pm
@@ -1774,8 +1774,12 @@ sub pagespec_merge ($$) {
return "($a) or ($b)";
}
-sub pagespec_translate ($) {
+# is perl really so dumb it requires a forward declaration for recursive calls?
+sub pagespec_translate ($$);
+
+sub pagespec_translate ($$) {
my $spec=shift;
+ my $specFuncsRef=shift;
# Convert spec to perl code.
my $code="";
@@ -1789,7 +1793,9 @@ sub pagespec_translate ($) {
|
\) # )
|
- \w+\([^\)]*\) # command(params)
+ define\(\s*~\w+\s*,((\([^()]*\)) | ([^()]+))+\) # define(~specName, spec) - spec can contain parens 1 deep
+ |
+ \w+\([^()]*\) # command(params) - params cannot contain parens
|
[^\s()]+ # any other text
)
@@ -1805,10 +1811,19 @@ sub pagespec_translate ($) {
elsif ($word eq "(" || $word eq ")" || $word eq "!") {
$code.=' '.$word;
}
- elsif ($word =~ /^(\w+)\((.*)\)$/) {
+ elsif ($word =~ /^define\(\s*(~\w+)\s*,(.*)\)$/s) {
+ my $name = $1;
+ my $subSpec = $2;
+ my $newSpecFunc = pagespec_translate($subSpec, $specFuncsRef);
+ return if $@ || ! defined $newSpecFunc;
+ $specFuncsRef->{$name} = $newSpecFunc;
+ push @data, qq{Created named pagespec "$name"};
+ $code.="IkiWiki::SuccessReason->new(\$data[$#data])";
+ }
+ elsif ($word =~ /^(\w+)\((.*)\)$/s) {
if (exists $IkiWiki::PageSpec::{"match_$1"}) {
push @data, $2;
- $code.="IkiWiki::PageSpec::match_$1(\$page, \$data[$#data], \@_)";
+ $code.="IkiWiki::PageSpec::match_$1(\$page, \$data[$#data], \@_, specFuncs => \$specFuncsRef)";
}
else {
push @data, qq{unknown function in pagespec "$word"};
@@ -1817,7 +1832,7 @@ sub pagespec_translate ($) {
}
else {
push @data, $word;
- $code.=" IkiWiki::PageSpec::match_glob(\$page, \$data[$#data], \@_)";
+ $code.=" IkiWiki::PageSpec::match_glob(\$page, \$data[$#data], \@_, specFuncs => \$specFuncsRef)";
}
}
@@ -1826,7 +1841,7 @@ sub pagespec_translate ($) {
}
no warnings;
- return eval 'sub { my $page=shift; '.$code.' }';
+ return eval 'memoize (sub { my $page=shift; '.$code.' })';
}
sub pagespec_match ($$;@) {
@@ -1839,7 +1854,7 @@ sub pagespec_match ($$;@) {
unshift @params, 'location';
}
- my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec);
+ my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec, +{});
return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("syntax error in pagespec \"$spec\"")
if $@ || ! defined $sub;
return $sub->($page, @params);
@@ -1850,7 +1865,7 @@ sub pagespec_match_list ($$;@) {
my $spec=shift;
my @params=@_;
- my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec);
+ my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec, +{});
error "syntax error in pagespec \"$spec\""
if $@ || ! defined $sub;
@@ -1872,7 +1887,7 @@ sub pagespec_match_list ($$;@) {
sub pagespec_valid ($) {
my $spec=shift;
- my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec);
+ my $sub=pagespec_translate($spec, +{});
return ! $@;
}
@@ -1919,6 +1934,68 @@ sub new {
package IkiWiki::PageSpec;
+sub check_named_spec($$;@) {
+ my $page=shift;
+ my $specName=shift;
+ my %params=@_;
+
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Unable to find specFuncs in params to check_named_spec()!")
+ unless exists $params{specFuncs};
+
+ my $specFuncsRef=$params{specFuncs};
+
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Named page spec '$specName' is not valid")
+ unless (substr($specName, 0, 1) eq '~');
+
+ if (exists $specFuncsRef->{$specName}) {
+ # remove the named spec from the spec refs
+ # when we recurse to avoid infinite recursion
+ my $sub = $specFuncsRef->{$specName};
+ delete $specFuncsRef->{$specName};
+ my $result = $sub->($page, %params);
+ $specFuncsRef->{$specName} = $sub;
+ return $result;
+ } else {
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Page spec '$specName' does not exist");
+ }
+}
+
+sub check_named_spec_existential($$$;@) {
+ my $page=shift;
+ my $specName=shift;
+ my $funcref=shift;
+ my %params=@_;
+
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Unable to find specFuncs in params to check_named_spec_existential()!")
+ unless exists $params{specFuncs};
+ my $specFuncsRef=$params{specFuncs};
+
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Named page spec '$specName' is not valid")
+ unless (substr($specName, 0, 1) eq '~');
+
+ if (exists $specFuncsRef->{$specName}) {
+ # remove the named spec from the spec refs
+ # when we recurse to avoid infinite recursion
+ my $sub = $specFuncsRef->{$specName};
+ delete $specFuncsRef->{$specName};
+
+ foreach my $nextpage (keys %IkiWiki::pagesources) {
+ if ($sub->($nextpage, %params)) {
+ my $tempResult = $funcref->($page, $nextpage, %params);
+ if ($tempResult) {
+ $specFuncsRef->{$specName} = $sub;
+ return IkiWiki::SuccessReason->new("Existential check of '$specName' matches because $tempResult");
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ $specFuncsRef->{$specName} = $sub;
+ return IkiWiki::FailReason->new("No page in spec '$specName' was successfully matched");
+ } else {
+ return IkiWiki::ErrorReason->new("Named page spec '$specName' does not exist");
+ }
+}
+
sub derel ($$) {
my $path=shift;
my $from=shift;
@@ -1937,6 +2014,10 @@ sub match_glob ($$;@) {
my $glob=shift;
my %params=@_;
+ if (substr($glob, 0, 1) eq '~') {
+ return check_named_spec($page, $glob, %params);
+ }
+
$glob=derel($glob, $params{location});
my $regexp=IkiWiki::glob2re($glob);
@@ -1959,8 +2040,9 @@ sub match_internal ($$;@) {
sub match_link ($$;@) {
my $page=shift;
- my $link=lc(shift);
+ my $fullLink=shift;
my %params=@_;
+ my $link=lc($fullLink);
$link=derel($link, $params{location});
my $from=exists $params{location} ? $params{location} : '';
@@ -1975,25 +2057,37 @@ sub match_link ($$;@) {
}
else {
return IkiWiki::SuccessReason->new("$page links to page $p matching $link")
- if match_glob($p, $link, %params);
+ if match_glob($p, $fullLink, %params);
$p=~s/^\///;
$link=~s/^\///;
return IkiWiki::SuccessReason->new("$page links to page $p matching $link")
- if match_glob($p, $link, %params);
+ if match_glob($p, $fullLink, %params);
}
}
return IkiWiki::FailReason->new("$page does not link to $link");
}
sub match_backlink ($$;@) {
- return match_link($_[1], $_[0], @_);
+ my $page=shift;
+ my $backlink=shift;
+ my @params=@_;
+
+ if (substr($backlink, 0, 1) eq '~') {
+ return check_named_spec_existential($page, $backlink, \&match_backlink, @params);
+ }
+
+ return match_link($backlink, $page, @params);
}
sub match_created_before ($$;@) {
my $page=shift;
my $testpage=shift;
my %params=@_;
-
+
+ if (substr($testpage, 0, 1) eq '~') {
+ return check_named_spec_existential($page, $testpage, \&match_created_before, %params);
+ }
+
$testpage=derel($testpage, $params{location});
if (exists $IkiWiki::pagectime{$testpage}) {
@@ -2014,6 +2108,10 @@ sub match_created_after ($$;@) {
my $testpage=shift;
my %params=@_;
+ if (substr($testpage, 0, 1) eq '~') {
+ return check_named_spec_existential($page, $testpage, \&match_created_after, %params);
+ }
+
$testpage=derel($testpage, $params{location});
if (exists $IkiWiki::pagectime{$testpage}) {
|
