https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py File scripts/lilypond-book.py (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode409 scripts/lilypond-book.py:409: checksum = hashlib.md5 () On 2020/02/01 17:13:02, hanwenn wrote: > add a comment that this is not security sensitive, so md5 is ok despite being > brokenn. Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode432 scripts/lilypond-book.py:432: snippet_names_file = 'snippet-names-%s.ly' % checksum On 2020/02/01 16:54:40, Dan Eble wrote: > It's strange that this is named *.ly but does not contain ly code. That's not > your problem, though. True. It's now relatively simple to change, what would you prefer? https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode441 scripts/lilypond-book.py:441: logfile = snippet_names_path[:-3] On 2020/02/01 17:13:02, hanwenn wrote: > os.path.splitext Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode481 scripts/lilypond-book.py:481: # Sort the keys / basenames to get a stable order. On 2020/02/01 16:54:40, Dan Eble wrote: > Good idea. Is there a reason you chose not to build sorting into > process_snippets()? Only a weak one: Keep it close to the code that uniques the list. Eventually we could use a dict that also sorts its keys. https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/
