[PATCH 1 of 3] hook: small refactor in the way we compute the hooks list

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 04/15/2016 04:26 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> On 15/04/2016 08:50, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>
>> # Date 1460626126 25200
>> #      Thu Apr 14 02:28:46 2016 -0700
>> # Node ID 063993ec1c63c22ff616609001b50292668bd92e
>> # Parent  8d398155bfda3a98e664af74096f0e405cc7dd09
>> # EXP-Topic hooks
>> hook: small refactor in the way we compute the hooks list
>>
>> We are about to take untrusted hooks into account (to report them as 
>> failure)
>> so we need to rearrange the code a bit to allow config overwriting 
>> each other
>> in a later patch.
>>
>> diff -r 8d398155bfda -r 063993ec1c63 mercurial/hook.py
>> --- a/mercurial/hook.py    Mon Feb 29 22:58:15 2016 +0900
>> +++ b/mercurial/hook.py    Thu Apr 14 02:28:46 2016 -0700
>> @@ -162,12 +162,13 @@
>>       return r
>>
>>   def _allhooks(ui):
>> -    hooks = []
>> +    hooks = {}
>>       for name, cmd in ui.configitems('hooks'):
>>           if not name.startswith('priority'):
>>               priority = ui.configint('hooks', 'priority.%s' % name, 0)
>> -            hooks.append((-priority, len(hooks), name, cmd))
>> -    return [(k, v) for p, o, k, v in sorted(hooks)]
>> +            hooks[name] = (-priority, len(hooks), cmd)
>> +    order = sorted(hooks, key=lambda x: hooks[x][:2] + (x,))
>> +    return [(k, hooks[k][2]) for k in order]
>
> I'd find this easier to review as:
>
>     hooks[name] = (-priority, len(hooks), name, cmd)
> return [(k, v) for p, o, k, v in sorted(hooks.values())]
>
> with similar changes to the other two patches. That way, it's obvious 
> that the behaviour isn't changing until patch 3, and there's less 
> counting of elements to do.

Yeah, I agree. I'll send a V2.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David