From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B147969E85 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:35:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9BF0035A74 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:34:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8DDF035A6A for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:34:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 17F2846399 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:34:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:34:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/87.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak , Dietmar Maurer , Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <79994563.854.1616523747514@webmail.proxmox.com> <28ca9b85-a8fd-d204-5586-07657c3ecaaa@proxmox.com> <1652ef3e-d29c-45a4-8dfa-09db3322260b@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1652ef3e-d29c-45a4-8dfa-09db3322260b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.045 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [sencha.com] Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] applied: [PATCH] panel/acme-domains: fix cyclic dependency in view model X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:35:23 -0000 On 24.03.21 08:31, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 3/24/21 08:21, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 23.03.21 19:22, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >>>> So, if on evaluation a get(X) is missed due to it being not always c= alled, >>>> like with boolean statements where a single truthy is enough for an = or expression >>>> like above, that data dependency is lost and one may see bug like be= haviour. >>>> >>>> Use intermediate variables to combat that, for example, above `accou= ntValueHidden` >>>> formula should read: >>>> >>>> accountValueHidden: (get) =3D> { >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let editable =3D get('accountEditable'), av= ailable =3D get('accountsAvailable'); >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return !editable || !available; >>>> }, >>> >>> I guess a good JIT can still optimize that away? >>> >> >> >> You're right, that may be the case. >> Albeit, I guess that for such short method where the JS engine cannot = know if it is >> a "hot" function (lots calls) so the JIT won't be used initially, and = the interpreter >> probably isn't smart enough to detect this optimization. >> >> At least above approach helped a bit ago when I ran in such a bug, but=20 yeah, it may >> not be really future proof... >> >> >=20 > but AFAIR, extjs actually parses the function *text* to find the > data dependencies (see https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.0.1/classic/src/= Formula.js.html) >=20 here the rendered docs version of that source code link https://docs.sencha.com/extjs/6.0.1/classic/Ext.app.bind.Formula.html > and i hope that the JIT does not change the text of the function > at all.... >=20 Not sure if there are any guarantees on that and not touching the src. But yeah I slowly remember, and my issue then probably came from an use o= f a variable as get parameter, which then naturally cannot work.