Re: proposal: schema variables

Hi

po 2. 9. 2024 v 16:00 odesílatel Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
napsal:

> On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 19:33 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * Although svar is freshly validated in this point, the
> svar->is_valid can
> > > > > > > + * be false, due possible accepting invalidation message
> inside domain
> > > > > > > + * check. Now, the validation is done after lock, that
> can also accept
> > > > > > > + * invalidation message, so validation should be
> trustful.
> > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > + * For now, we don't need to repeat validation. Only
> svar should be valid
> > > > > > > + * pointer.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > >
> > > > > This comment is related to assertions. Before I had there
> `Assert(svar->is_valid)`,
> > > > > because I expected it. But it was not always true. And although it
> is true,
> > > > > we don't need to validate a variable, because at this moment, the
> variable
> > > > > should be locked, and then we can return content safely.
> > > >
> > > > I guess my main problem is the word "trustful". I don't recognize
> that word.
> > > > Perhaps you can reword the comment along the lines of your above
> explanation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll try to change it
> >
> > is this better
> >
> > <-->/*
> > <--> * Although svar is freshly validated in this point, the
> svar->is_valid can
> > <--> * be false, due possible accepting invalidation message inside
> domain
> > <--> * check. But now, the variable, and all dependencies are locked, so
> we
> > <--> * don't need to repeat validation.
> > <--> */
>
> Much better.
>
> Here is an improved version:
>
> Although "svar" is freshly validated in this point, svar->is_valid can
> be false, if an invalidation message ws processed during the domain
> check.
> But the variable and all its dependencies are locked now, so we don't
> need
> to repeat the validation.
>
>

merged

thank you

Regards

Pavel

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>