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

Draft configuration setup #41

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

nadilas
Copy link

@nadilas nadilas commented Dec 21, 2019

Hi @bradleyjkemp, this would be my initial take on the config... check it out and let me know

Copy link
Owner

@bradleyjkemp bradleyjkemp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is looking like it's going to be really useful. I have a few comments on the specific options but mostly I think let's split these up into separate PRs so that they can be reviewed more easily 🙂

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
name: Go
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's stay with TravisCI for now 🙂

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah.. sorry, it was rather unintentional 😕

config.go Outdated
return c.maxInliningSize
}

func (c *Config) SetMaxInliningSize(maxInliningSize InlineSize) {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
func (c *Config) SetMaxInliningSize(maxInliningSize InlineSize) {
func MaxItemsToInline(maxItems int) Configurator {

I think the number of elements to inline makes sense to just be an int rather than a separate type.

Also suggest we change this signature (and the other config options) so that callers can construct this like:

m := memviz.New(
    MaxItemsToInline(10),
    AnotherOption(false))
m.Map(&foo)

(i.e. using this pattern: https://dave.cheney.net/2014/10/17/functional-options-for-friendly-apis)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, awesome! I myself found the setter methods to be unfit for the init.

return m.mapPtrIface(iVal, inlineable, depth)
// Collections
case reflect.Struct:
if m.config.maxDepth > 0 && depth > m.config.maxDepth {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can probably lift this repeated depth check to just run once at the start of this function. If we're taking depth to mean "number of graphviz nodes" then I think we can use:

if depth >= m.config.maxDepth {
    return 0, ""
}

i.e. if this value is going to cause another node to be created and we've already reached the limit then stop. This is perhaps a bit tricky because of the behaviour of inlineable though.
I'd have to remind myself what exactly this does but I think it's more of a hint than an instruction so accurately calculating depth is tricky.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm pretty sure we have interpreted �������depth differently. 😆 When you say "number of graphviz nodes", do you mean a) in total? or b) the number of graphviz nodes down the embedded tree of the root object?

i.e. if this value is going to cause another node to be created and we've already reached the limit then stop. This is perhaps a bit tricky because of the behaviour of inlineable though.

I think this actually caught my attention during the first testing, and I worked around it. If it's inlineable it will still be rendered, maxdepth "only" has an influence on next level objects. Please go in and test this, I will too, I am unclear on the details 😉

utils.go Outdated
// writeDotStringToPng takes a content of a dot file in a string and makes a graph using Graphviz
// to ouput an image
//
// sourced from https://github.com/Arafatk/DataViz/blob/master/utils/utils.go
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I'd rather just include a snippet in the README showing how to use this util function for those that want it rather than duplicating it here e.g.

b := &bytes.Buffer{}
memviz.Map(foo, b)
utils.WriteDotStringToPng(b.String(), "foo.png")

Copy link
Author

@nadilas nadilas Jan 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure, I only used for "visual testing", to be able to confirm the edits I made in the code. I have moved it to the README

links = append(links, fmt.Sprintf(" %d:f%d -> %d:name;\n", id, index, fieldID))
} else {
// negative value means max depth was reached so don't link over to next node
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm perhaps mapValue should return something more clear like a bool saying that this was inlined/skipped.

I also think we should render something here to show that the field existed but was skipped.

Copy link
Author

@nadilas nadilas Jan 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm perhaps mapValue should return something more clear like a bool saying that this was inlined/skipped.

I agree, this was a quick edit to test out the concept.

I also think we should render something here to show that the field existed but was skipped.

You mean "render" as in within the dot notation? Would that still count as "skipping"?

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.

None yet

2 participants