Hi,
I implemented a basic json output for the derivation comparison page,
for my first contribution as an Outreachy applicant.
The patch for the code I've changed is attached.
I'm waiting your reviews :)
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
diff --git a
on.
> I'm not sure what revision here referrs to.
It was a placeholder, but now I removed it.
> I hope that helps, just let me know if you have any questions,
The function get-derivation-data does not depend on anything, don't you
think it goes better in another place outside re
output. Also, I think that sometimes you might have more than one output
for base, target like it does for common, and I fail to see how your
example function addresses this. In short, I couldn't see the benefit
of this over calling the function three times. Is it for organizational
purpose or am I simply wrong? This time I'm just not understanding.
:)
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
ased on the html code. However this outputs me
something like:
(("base" derivation output)
("target" derivation output)
("common" derivation output)
...)
where "..." are lots of different ("common" derivation output) lists.
The only way I could think of showing this, was transforming it to a
vector, which gives us the indexes from 0, and inside each one we
would have the label showing where it came from. Is that the way you
think it is better? (is this what your proposed function should
accomplish?)
I think the above output produces a bit less clean json,
that is why I changed this function to the last one I sent you, so I
don't need to pass any labels, because if I pass the base, target, and
common lists separately the output is already correct and we don't need
any vectors.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
earning a great deal! :)
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
Federal University of Uberlândia
>From b51dd007180e69f7da479a857afd48dfa60e32e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luciana Brito
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 11:06:06 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] Implement basic jso
ch more
sense to me. I simplified this part of getting properly the values from
matched-outputs, matched-inputs and matched-sources.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
>From 8d91269ead953c7d087242fbce5857af89af3025 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luciana Brito
Date
e where the
> binding is used.
Done! :)
I even simplified some other stuff, based on what you said.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
>From 701c89e8f039a6bc7d9b616acded54eac26fb0a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luciana Brito
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 11:06:06 -0
arguments grouping, I think this makes sense on the
> HTML page, as they're connected, but does it make sense in the JSON?
indeed, I separated them.
> I think you're getting close to something that's ready to merge
> though.
One last thing, I see that on the
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 13:12:07 +
Luciana Lima Brito wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:45:14 +0100
> Christopher Baines wrote:
>
> > Some more things to think about:
> >
> > - Variable naming, what does the "matched" in matched outputs mea
ces, I'd map over the arguments alist and transform it to the way
> you want it to be.
This part was a bit more complicated for me to understand. You mean I
should build a function similar to outputs, inputs and sources to map
the arguments, wouldn't it be a lot just to show a vector
One different thing I noticed:
>
> ,@(if (not (string? hash-alg))
> '()
> `((hash-algorithm . ,hash-alg)))
>
> I'd suggest simplifying this by flipping the different parts of the
> if, and removing the not.
Done.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Compu
rding a contribution,
> and starting to think about submitting the final application.
I think I have to do something about that too.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
ta on comparison.scm, and it
worked properly. Is this the kind of change I should be doing?
In case of a yes, which kind of improvements should I be aiming for?
Furthermore, should I try to achieve any improvements to the queries
itself, or this is not necessary?
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
e slightly different. I'm not sure if this is what you want.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
s the way
to go, but I can make some experiments in this regard.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
rst method I mentioned.
And then, I would have the following alist:
((base (...))
(target (...))
(common ((...)(...)(...
which is the current alist we are using in controller.scm.
Problem is, I still don't know how to do this, and this seems somewhat
too long winded to get the proper alist.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
p and match-lambda code to process them,
wouldn't it be reasonable now to make it a local function?
I'm sending the patch. I'll be waiting your reviews.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
>From d605d519a684b1be57ebd09cdf697bcdba017da1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:0
uld be less clean and "arguments" would appear in a
different order. What I did was bind the result of a function similar
to this in the let.
Well, this way made things much shorter. I'm sending a new patch for
you to review.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer
d a comment explaining its use.
The main point here is, the code is working and it looks nice, but to
get the data with the vectors seems to be right too. I'm sending the
new patch for your review and I'll wait for your call, if you think I
should try the first route or not.
--
Best Re
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:10:01 +
Luciana Lima Brito wrote:
> > Maybe add another procedure that combines group-to-alist but
> > generates an alist with vectors as the values?
> > (group-to-alist/vector maybe).
I did it! :)
It was so much simpler. I created a function
gro
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:42:13 +0100
Christopher Baines wrote:
> I'd go with this approach, applying the comments I made about the
> match-lambda bit above in the email I sent a few minutes ago.
I applied all you instructed me. See if it looks better now.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana
ill
finish at each step".
another thing, what I should be doing now for my
next contribution?
I'll be waiting for your directions.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
know what exactly is to be improved? But I imagine that
work on this second task is more demanding than the first and will take
most of the time of the internship.
I appreciate if you could clarify some of these ideas I mentioned.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
for improvement are. Maybe have a look through one of the job logs on
> data.guix.gnu.org and see if you can spot some slow parts?
I'll look into that and get back to you.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
you think about that.
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
so it is harder to get the names of the actions and the time
taken by each, so I think that create a new table, with only these
values, is more suitable.
>
> Great, this is more like it.
:)
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
s could be applied to both charts in order
to make clear the equivalence. Both charts should appear at the same
time, one above the other, to ease comparison.
> Great, this is a good amount of detail.
I'll add this to the plan and to the final application, ok?
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:07:56 +0100
Christopher Baines wrote:
> Luciana Lima Brito writes:
>
> > On Sat, 01 May 2021 09:16:08 +0100
> > Christopher Baines wrote:
> >
> >> Currently the timing of various sections of the process includes
> >> timing
od time for some new task? :)
--
Best Regards,
Luciana Lima Brito
MSc. in Computer Science
29 matches
Mail list logo
