Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(879)

Issue 5498093: Sketch of not remaking html files (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
2 years, 3 months ago by PhilEHolmes
Modified:
2 years, 3 months ago
Reviewers:
Graham Percival, email, Julien Rioux, mail
CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Should probably have associated this with
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2028.  It's an attempt to
stop make doc recreating the whole of build/out-www/offline-root/ every time
it's run, whether any of the files there have been change or not.  It changes
the make file to stop it blindly deleting that directory, and then www_post.py
to allow for the fact that the directory/ies might exist.  It then checks
whether the target file is newer than the source before recreating the target. 
On my quick machine, make LANGS='' doc where there is no work to do now only
takes 5 seconds, as opposed to nearly 20.  On my slow VM, it reduces the time
from 2m 30s to 40s.  I've tested it with a fresh make doc and confirmed all the
required files exist after the make.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 3

Patch Set 2 : Changes following previous review #

Total comments: 1
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+40 lines, -28 lines) Patch
M GNUmakefile.in View 1 1 chunk +0 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M python/auxiliar/postprocess_html.py View 1 1 chunk +30 lines, -24 lines 0 comments Download
M scripts/build/www_post.py View 1 1 chunk +10 lines, -3 lines 1 comment Download

Messages

Total messages: 9
PhilEHolmes
Please review
2 years, 3 months ago #1
Graham Percival
a few minor quibbles; I'm on a ferry right now so I can't test a ...
2 years, 3 months ago #2
email_philholmes.net
----- Original Message ----- From: <graham@percival-music.ca> To: <PhilEHolmes@googlemail.com>; <percivall@gmail.com> Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January ...
2 years, 3 months ago #3
mail_philholmes.net
----- Original Message ----- From: <graham@percival-music.ca> To: <PhilEHolmes@googlemail.com>; <percivall@gmail.com> Cc: <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> Sent: Monday, January ...
2 years, 3 months ago #4
email_philholmes.net
----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Holmes" <email@philholmes.net> To: <PhilEHolmes@googlemail.com>; <percivall@gmail.com>; <graham@percival-music.ca>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com> Cc: ...
2 years, 3 months ago #5
Graham Percival
LGTM
2 years, 3 months ago #6
Julien Rioux
Checking the file timestamps will be a good thing. It might be better to just ...
2 years, 3 months ago #7
mail_philholmes.net
----- Original Message ----- From: <julien.rioux@gmail.com> To: <PhilEHolmes@googlemail.com>; <graham@percival-music.ca>; <email@philholmes.net>; <mail@philholmes.net> Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com> Sent: ...
2 years, 3 months ago #8
Julien Rioux
2 years, 3 months ago #9
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Phil Holmes <mail@philholmes.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <julien.rioux@gmail.com>
> To: <PhilEHolmes@googlemail.com>; <graham@percival-music.ca>;
> <email@philholmes.net>; <mail@philholmes.net>
> Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Sketch of not remaking html files (issue 5498093)
>
>
>
>> Checking the file timestamps will be a good thing. It might be better to
>> just replace the whole www_post script by make rules, but in the current
>> implementation this is a good improvement.
>>
>> Just a style thing, in general I notice that you use "function(arg)"
>> while the rest of python source code in the lilypond tree uses "function
>> (arg)". I don't like the extra space myself but I prefer keeping to one
>> consistent style.
>
>
> Will try to pick this up.
>
>
>> My other comment is similar to Graham's:
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5498093/diff/5001/scripts/build/www_post.py
>> File scripts/build/www_post.py (right):
>>
>>
>>
http://codereview.appspot.com/5498093/diff/5001/scripts/build/www_post.py#new...
>> scripts/build/www_post.py:83: sys.exc_clear()
>> Why do you catch this exception? Would it not be sufficient to test for
>> the existence of the destination file?
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5498093/
>>
>
> TBH, I don't understand the function of os.link - and catching an exception
> when it failed worked perfectly.  If you have a better suggestion, I'd
> happily adopt it.
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
>
>

What I have in mind is something very similar to what you did with
os.mkdir a few lines above. So for example

for f in hardlinked_files:
    dest = strip_file_name[t] (f)
    if not os.path.exists (dest):
        os.link (f, dest)
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld 1278:e6ce13d99bf5