Re: New ‘--list-generations’ and ‘--delete-generations’ options

[Ludovic Courtès]

Nikita Karetnikov <address@hidden> skribis:

>> BTW, what did you think of the idea of using recutils format as the
>> output?  (Either as the sole output format, or otherwise as a secondary
>> format.)
>
> I like the idea.  It’s always better to use a documented format,
> especially when it comes with a mode for Emacs.  And don’t forget that
> ‘--search’ already uses recutils.  I didn’t say anything before because
> I haven’t tried to implement this part yet.

I’m asking because if we do that, ‘--list-generations’ may just as well
print out *all* the generation records.  Users who want to select only
less than one-month old generations can do that with ‘recsel’, and we
don’t have anything more to do.

WDYT?

OTOH, for ‘--delete-generations’ it will still be more convenient to
support ‘--delete-generations’.

>>> Do you see any problems?  Please check everything (especially the
>>> ‘first-month’ and ‘last-month’ functions).
>
>> Better yet: write test cases.  :-)
>
> I have some tests, but you have to modify ‘int’ and the other related
> procedures to use them.  So it’s not an option.
>
> I’m also not sure what’s the best way to test the ‘first-month’ and
> ‘last-month’ functions (the validation part).  Any ideas?

I think you find it difficult to test because the parsing and generation
enumeration are intermingled.

If parsing is separated as I suggested, with a ‘string->date-range’
procedure, then it becomes trivial to write test cases for that.

>> The code otherwise looks OK, but disentangling parsing from validation
>> will make it even more pleasant IMO.
>
> I agree.  I just haven’t found a way that avoids unnecessary repetition.

What do you think of the separation I proposed?

> Could you share your thoughts on other things that are marked with
> “XXX”?

I don’t have much to say on these at this stage, but I think it’d be
easier to comment on the next version of the patch.  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.