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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Iter on node and commit graphs #1077
Iter on node and commit graphs #1077
Changes from all commits
317ac7a
7b8c909
c8a4042
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.
I have a feeling that this function is also going to iterate over the nodes and the contents referenced by the closure of commits given, it's just not going to do anything when it visits them; is that right?
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.
Yes, it just ignores them. So we can add
?node:(node -> unit Lwt.t)
and?contents:(contents * metadata -> unit Lwt.t)
. I didn't do it because I don't need it in the layered store, but maybe we should add them for future usage?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.
Not having iterators for
node
andcontents
seems fine. I was mostly concerned about performance: iterating over all objects in the closure when you're only making progress for the commits feels like it might be quite inefficient.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.
Good point, it actually only iterates over commits, as the predecessors of a commit are its parents. Unlike for nodes where predecessors can be both nodes and contents. So I was wrong above, we cannot iterate over nodes and contents with this function.
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.
Hmm... indeed. This
iter
function never seems to behave the way I expect it to 😛Can you add something like
`Node _ | `Contents _ -> assert false
in the implementation, just to make that clear?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.
Nice suggestions, thanks!