From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:34:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e2d76229-50d8-51e0-7b87-0decc0d9808d@proxmox.com>
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 <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
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 <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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
<pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>,
<mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=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.