[ditrack commit] r2389 - src/trunk/DITrack/DB

[Vlad Skvortsov]

oleg at ditrack.org wrote:
> Author: oleg
> Date: 2007-11-24 09:03:55 -0800 (Sat, 24 Nov 2007)
> New Revision: 2389
>
> Modified:
>    src/trunk/DITrack/DB/WC.py
> Log:
> implemented caching of firm issues
>
>
> Modified: src/trunk/DITrack/DB/WC.py
> ===================================================================
> --- src/trunk/DITrack/DB/WC.py	2007-11-24 08:49:28 UTC (rev 2388)
> +++ src/trunk/DITrack/DB/WC.py	2007-11-24 17:03:55 UTC (rev 2389)
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
>  
>  # DITrack modules
>  import DITrack.SVN
> +import DITrack.DB.Cache
>  import DITrack.DB.Issue
>  
>  # Comment file name regular expression.
> @@ -142,6 +143,7 @@
>          self.next_num_path = os.path.join(path, "meta", "next-id")
>          self.svn = DITrack.SVN.Client(svn_path)
>          self.meta = DITrack.DB.Common.open_shelving(path, META_FILE)
> +        self.cache = DITrack.DB.Cache.Cache(path)
>  
>      def _get_next_comment_number(self, path):
>          """
> @@ -249,7 +251,8 @@
>          for op in changes:
>              op.fill_txn(txn)
>  
> -        # XXX: if failed to commit, revert local changes.
> +        # XXX: if failed to commit, revert local changes and don't clean cache.
> +        self.cache.clear()
>   

Why do we need to clean the cache here? Since we've introduced 
autodetection of updated issues, I don't think it's longer needed.


>          txn.commit(logmsg)
>  
>      def issues(self):
> @@ -258,6 +261,9 @@
>          working copy.
>          """
>  
> +        if len(self.cache):
> +            return self.cache.get()
> +
>          issue_re = re.compile("^i(\\d+)$")
>  
>          lst = []
> @@ -274,6 +280,8 @@
>              issue = DITrack.DB.Issue.Issue.load(path)
>              res.append((id, issue))
>  
> +        self.cache.set(res)
> +
>          return res
>  
>      def new_comment(self, issue_num, comment):
> @@ -432,6 +440,8 @@
>  
>          try:
>              us = self.svn.update(self.path)
> +            if us:
> +                self.cache.clear()
>   

Same here I guess. Seems like we can get rid of the clear() method 
altogether?


-- 
Vlad Skvortsov, vss at 73rus.com, http://vss.73rus.com