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.

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

Support fingerprinting of UnsetBool options. #4665

Merged

Conversation

jsirois
Copy link
Contributor

@jsirois jsirois commented Jun 9, 2017

This was a landmine waiting to go off. All other supported option custom
types were handled.

This was a landmine waiting to go off. All other supported option custom
types were handled.
@jsirois jsirois requested a review from benjyw June 9, 2017 20:04
@jsirois
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsirois commented Jun 9, 2017

Supports #4660 in the quest towards #4587

@jsirois jsirois requested a review from stuhood June 9, 2017 20:21
Copy link
Sponsor Member

@stuhood stuhood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

whoa. Did not know that this existed.

Thanks.

@jsirois jsirois merged commit a2cd863 into pantsbuild:master Jun 9, 2017
@jsirois jsirois deleted the jsirois/issues/4587/options/unset_bool_fp branch June 9, 2017 21:11


class Encoder(json.JSONEncoder):
_UNSET_BOOL_ENCODING = '__type::{}::{}'.format(inspect.getmodule(UnsetBool), UnsetBool.__name__)
Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is the inspect magic needed? Couldn't this just be UnsetBool.__module__, or even a hard-coded string? I mean, apart from readability concerns _UNSET_BOOL_ENCODING can be literally any unlikely-to-collide string, if I understand this correctly?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jsirois jsirois Jun 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It could be anything - eye of beholder I guess. I look at __module__, __package__ and throw up my hands as to which will be available when. I figure inspect gets this right robustly.

Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, as long as it's not a performance liability, which it probably isn't. My suspicion of introspection is a JVM holdover, in Python introspection is part of the bargain, I guess.

Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we actually care what module this is in though? Would we want to invalidate if we renamed the module?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jsirois jsirois Jun 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, as long as it's not a performance liability ....

Its a class constant, so no real concern

Do we actually care what module this is in though?

No, just that it doesn't collide with other strings. Open to a concrete suggestion on what value makes sense.

Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think '_UNSET_BOOL_ENCODING' as the value makes sense?

Sorry to harp on this, I just imagine (or another casual reader) looking at this in the future and wondering why we want to invalidate options fingerprints if we change the name or location of an implementation detail. A constant literal string is fairly idiomatic for "symbolic constant value whose actual content isn't significant, only its uniqueness".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good - unlikely to collide.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants