1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
[[!template id=gitbranch branch=GiuseppeBilotta/scanif author="[[GiuseppeBilotta]]"]]
When a directive that should be run during scan preprocessing is inside
an if directive, it doesn't get called because the if preprocessing does
not run during scan.
I've written a simple [[patch]] to fix the issue, currently hosted on the
scanif branch of my repository. The patch also passes the preview option
back to the Ikiwiki::preprocess call, making sure that whatever is being
reprocessed is done so in the same conditions as the original call.
> One problem with this is that it has the same dependency-ordering problems
> as inline-based or pagespec-based trails with my [[plugins/contrib/trail]]
> plugin: `if` takes a pagespec, but pagespecs aren't guaranteed to match
> correctly until everything has been scanned (for instance, `link()` might
> give the wrong results because a page that added or deleted a link hasn't
> been scanned yet). If you have a clever idea for how to fix this, I'd love
> to hear it - being able to specify a [[plugins/contrib/trail]] in terms
> of a sorted pagespec would be useful. --[[smcv]]
>> I have a solution to the dependency-ordering problem in a different
>> branch of my repository, with a post_scan hook mechanism which I use to
>> be able to sort outer inline pages according to the last modification
>> date of their nested inline pages. The way I implemented it currently,
>> though, doesn't use the existing hooks mechanism of ikiwiki (because
>> it's something which I believe to be more efficiently done the way I
>> implemented it) so I don't know how likely it is to be included
>> upstream.
>> For what it's worth, I think that my post_scan hook mechanism would work
>> rather fine with your trail plugin.
>>> We discussed this on IRC, and I think it's actually more complicated
>>> than that: the branch to sort by newest inlined entry wants a
>>> "pagespecs now work" hook, whereas for trail I want a "sorting now
>>> works" hook:
>>>
>>> * scan
>>> * pagespecs now work (post-scan)
>>> * Giuseppe's version of inline can decide what each inline
>>> contains, and thus decide where they go in `inline(mtime)`
>>> order
>>> * pagespecs and sorting now work (pre-render)
>>> * my trail plugin can decide what each trail contains, and
>>> also sort them in the right order (which might be
>>> `inline(mtime)`, so might be undefined until pagespecs work)
>>> * render
>>>
>>> --[[smcv]]
>> However, the case of the if
>> directive is considerably more complicated, because the conditional
>> can introduce a much stronger feedback effect in the pre/post scanning
>> dependency. In fact, it's probably possible to build a couple of pages
>> with vicious conditional dependency circles that would break/unbreak
>> depending on which pass we are in. And I believe this is an intrinsic
>> limitation of the system, which cannot be solved at all.
>>> One way forward that I can think of for this issue is to
>>> have a way to tell `\[[!if]]` which answer it should assume for
>>> scanning purposes, so it would assume that answer when running
>>> in the scan phase, and really evaluate the pagespec when running
>>> in the render phase. For instance:
>>>
>>> \[[!if test="enabled(foo)" scan_assume=yes then="""
>>> \[[!foo]]
>>> """]]
>>>
>>> could maybe scan \[[!foo]] unconditionally.
>>>
>>> This makes me wonder whether `\[[!if]]` was too general: by having
>>> the full generality of pagespecs, it reduces its possible uses to
>>> "those contexts where pagespecs work".
>>>
>>> Another possibility might be to have "complex" pagespecs and sort
>>> orders (those whose correct answer requires scanning to have completed,
>>> like `link()` and sorting by `meta(title)`) throw an error when used in
>>> the scan phase, but simple pagespecs like `enabled()` and `glob()`, and
>>> simple sort orders like `title` and `path`, could continue to work?
>>> My `wip-too-soon` work-in-progress branch is heading in this direction,
>>> although it currently makes `pagespec_match` fail completely and does
>>> not even allow "simple" pagespecs and sort orders.
>>>
>>> At the moment, if a pagespec cannot be evaluated, `\[[!if]]` will
>>> produce neither the `then` clause nor the `else` clause. This could
>>> get pretty confusing if it is run during the scan phase and produces
>>> an error, then run during the render phase and succeeds: if you had,
>>> say,
>>>
>>> \[[!if run_during_scan=1 test="link(foo)" then="""
>>> there is a link to foo
>>> \[[!tag there_is_a_link_to_foo]]
>>> """ else="""
>>> there is no link to foo
>>> \[[!tag there_is_no_link_to_foo]]
>>> """]]
>>>
>>> then the resulting page would contain one of the snippets of text,
>>> but its metadata would contain neither of the tags. Perhaps the plugin
>>> would have to remember that it failed during the scan phase, so that
>>> it could warn about the failure during the render phase instead of,
>>> or in addition to, producing its normal output?
>>>
>>> Of the conditional-specific tests, `included()` and `destpage(glob)`
>>> can never match during scan.
>>>
>>> Does anyone actually use `\[[!if]]` in ways that they would want to
>>> be active during scan, other than an `enabled(foo)` test?
>>> I'm increasingly tempted to add `\[[!ifenabled foo]]` to solve
>>> that single case, and call that a solution to this bug...
>>>
>>> --[[smcv]]
|