Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

RFC: Cache filename #156

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

RFC: Cache filename #156

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b7f1a0e
extension: rename docstring cache to hawkmoth_parsed_files
jnikula May 24, 2023
386953b
extension: cache directive filename option across directives
jnikula May 24, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions src/hawkmoth/__init__.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -161,6 +161,12 @@ class _AutoSymbolDirective(_AutoBaseDirective):
def _get_filenames(self):
filename = self.options.get('file')

# Cache filename across directives in rst document
if filename:
self.env.temp_data['hawkmoth_current_file'] = filename
else:
filename = self.env.temp_data.get('hawkmoth_current_file')
Copy link
Collaborator

@BrunoMSantos BrunoMSantos May 28, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, so having looked into this I stand by my comment in #157: I don't like the idea of stateful directives too much. But I've also reconsidered things a bit, even if I would still personally vote this particular implementation down in favour of having a specialized directive to select a file.

Not only that would be much more explicit, we could later combine it with full lookup / cache as a way of speeding things up by limiting the search to a (set of) directory --- i.e.: .. autoresolve:: some/dir. And in that case, adding the new directive with support for a single file only could be done without implying future breaking API changes.

Thoughts?

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, so having looked into this I stand by my comment in #157: I don't like the idea of stateful directives too much. But I've also reconsidered things a bit, even if I would still personally vote this particular implementation down in favour of having a specialized directive to select a file.

Agreed. If there are going to be stateful directives, they should be explicit rather than implicit like this.


# Note: For the time being the file option is mandatory (sic).
if not filename:
self.logger.warning(':file: option missing.',
Expand Down