Skip to content

SL-18330: In XML formatter, avoid adding call stack depth. #13

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 8, 2023

Conversation

nat-goodspeed
Copy link
Contributor

Making LLSDXMLFormatter._elt() accept a lambda was a tricky way to minimize
source changes to existing _elt() calls in _ARRAY() and _MAP(). The trouble is
that that added function entries for each level of a deeply-nested LLSD
structure -- and with our users, we unfortunately do encounter deeply-nested
large inventories. Log observed RecursionError failures in AIS.

Explicitly write out the individual sequence of calls in _ARRAY(), _MAP() and
the top-level _write(), the only callers to pass lambdas to _elt().

LogLinden and others added 2 commits April 19, 2023 20:00
Making LLSDXMLFormatter._elt() accept a lambda was a tricky way to minimize
source changes to existing _elt() calls in _ARRAY() and _MAP(). The trouble is
that that added function entries for each level of a deeply-nested LLSD
structure -- and with our users, we unfortunately do encounter deeply-nested
large inventories. Log observed RecursionError failures in AIS.

Explicitly write out the individual sequence of calls in _ARRAY(), _MAP() and
the top-level _write(), the only callers to pass lambdas to _elt().
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2023

CLA Assistant Lite bot:
Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open-source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution. You can sign the CLA by just posting a Pull Request Comment same as the below format.


I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA


1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.
@nat-goodspeed
@LogLinden
You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 4, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #13 (674f8aa) into main (ed393fd) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #13      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.28%   90.33%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines         844      848       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits          762      766       +4     
  Misses         82       82              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
llsd/serde_xml.py 96.94% <100.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Member

@bennettgoble bennettgoble left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes seem fine. Since Log is an employee I think we can look past the CLA check for now.

@nat-goodspeed nat-goodspeed merged commit a63abbe into main May 8, 2023
@nat-goodspeed nat-goodspeed deleted the log/deep_map branch May 8, 2023 14:13
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 8, 2023
@nat-goodspeed
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bennettgoble I'm not yet clear on what should trigger a new release. I guess I'll create a minor one and hope it helps.

@LogLinden
Copy link
Contributor

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants