Add safe config updating #7224
Open
Add safe config updating #7224
+556
−420
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Efnilite
added
bug
Efnilite
commented
Nov 21, 2024
|
|
||
| File backup = FileUtils.backup(configFile); | ||
| boolean updated = mainConfig.updateNodes(newConfig); | ||
| // mainConfig.getMainNode().set(version.key, Skript.getVersion().toString()); TODO FOR TESTING! |
Efnilite
removed
the
priority: high
Efnilite
commented
Nov 22, 2024
APickledWalrus
requested changes
Nov 22, 2024
Moderocky
reviewed
Nov 27, 2024
Efnilite
changed the title
Moderocky
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2024
sovdeeth
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2024
| * @return A set of the discovered nodes, guaranteed to be in the order of discovery. | ||
| */ | ||
| @Contract(pure = true) | ||
| private static @NotNull Set<Node> findNodes(@NotNull SectionNode node) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be discoverNodes, since find implies we're trying to find something specific. Or flattenNodes()
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (newConfig.setValues(mc, version.key, databases.key) || forceUpdate) { // new config is different |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little worried this behavior isn't maintained. Can you show the results of some tests with a config file updating from like, 2.4 -> 2.9.5 and likewise with 2.4->2.10? I'm not entirely sure how it worked tbh.
APickledWalrus
requested changes
Dec 15, 2024
| return false; | ||
|
|
||
| for (Node node : nodesToUpdate) { | ||
| Skript.debug("Updating node %s", node); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be worth having a debug message at the beginning like Updating config <name>
| SectionNode parent = getNode(newParent.getPath()); | ||
| Preconditions.checkNotNull(parent); | ||
|
|
||
| int idx = node.getIndex(); |
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public int hashCode() { | ||
| return Objects.hash(Arrays.hashCode(getPath()), comment); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason you're calculating the path hashcode too? Rather than just:
Suggested change
| return Objects.hash(Arrays.hashCode(getPath()), comment); | |
| return Objects.hash(getPath(), comment); |
| * @return The node at the specified index. May be null. | ||
| * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the index is out of bounds | ||
| */ | ||
| @Nullable Node getAt(int idx) { |
| }) { | ||
| public @NotNull Iterator<Node> iterator() { | ||
| return new CheckedIterator<>(fullIterator(), | ||
| n -> Objects.nonNull(n) && !n.isVoid()); // double null check to avoid warning |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be fine to suppress the warning instead with a comment explaining why
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Changes
Config#updateNodesAbout updateNodes
Config#updateNodesdiffers from the current behaviour ofConfig#setValuesas it does not touch any nodes in the existing config ("the old config") that are also present in the config provided with Skript ("the new config"). This ensures safety for critical sections like thedatabasessection.First, the difference between the nodes of the new and old config is found. These nodes that are missing from the old config will then be added to the old config at the index (the amount of nodes prior to the current one) at which they were found in the new config.
Testing
From my testing, this only seems to break when the old config is made invalid by de-indenting one of the entry nodes. This means the path of the following nodes are all different until the start of the next section (at the same indentation as the currently de-indented entry node, not any children). As a node's path is used to determine whether it is missing from the config, this will cause these following nodes to de-indent as well, deleting the current section head. This seems to be fixed by adding a check for whether the parsed config is valid, by using
SectionNode#isValid.Limitations
Currently, outdated comments are not deleted and I'm not sure whether we want to support keeping user-added comments present. Should this be added?
Removed
My sanity
Target Minecraft Versions: any
Requirements: none
Related Issues: #7184