← Back to team overview

arsenal-devel team mailing list archive

Re: Attachments filtering

 

On 07/21/2010 02:24 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 05:09:16AM +0500, Kamran Riaz Khan wrote:
Onto the proof of concept branch, lpltk's Attachments class has the
additional benefit of using yield generators in order to process large
sets of attachments. IIUC, while your filtered_attachments has the
benefit of providing cleaner interface for filtering it nullifies the
generator benefits by filtering all the attachments at once instead of
relying on yield.

In other words, I think:

     def __iter__(self):
         for attachment in self._attachments:

             # this is a more suitable place for checking
             # attachment and deciding whether or not to yield it
             # based on filters

             yield Attachment(self.__tkbug, attachment)
Cool.  So something like this:

     def __iter__(self):
         self.__fetch_if_needed()
         for attachment in self.__attachments:
             a = Attachment(self.__tkbug, attachment)
             for f, params in self.__filters.items():
                 if not f(a, params):
                     continue
             yield a

However, I do like that filtered_attachments() caches the filtered list
in memory (and in my newest branch, resets if a new filter is applied).

If no one else takes this up, I'll try uploading a branch with this
implementation after I get done with send_upstream.cgi and
send-attachments-upstream.
Sure, would love to see your shot at it, this could probably be done
smarter.

Let me know what changes you're planning to send_upstream.cgi -- I've
been hacking on it as well so we should coordinate what we do.

Bryce


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~arsenal-devel
Post to     : arsenal-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~arsenal-devel
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I like the idea. I'm struggling a bit with whether this functionality should be
added to the base Attachments class or a subclass.

In general though, I like the idea a lot.

Brad
--
Brad Figg brad.figg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canonical.com



References