-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
make relationship parsing to be more efficient through precomputation #743
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Brandon Lum <lumjjb@gmail.com>
some related tests are failing:
you should be able to run these tests locally with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tests are failing
Signed-off-by: Brandon Lum <lumjjb@gmail.com>
I triggered the CI |
Signed-off-by: Brandon Lum <lumjjb@gmail.com>
Thanks! sorry for the multiple pushes, not super familiar with the tooling, just fixed the lint errors (i believe) |
I am happy to re-trigger and to support you. (Sadly, I am on my way to bed. Will trigger again tomorrow, if you made new pushes) |
you can run the linting tests locally via:
|
Signed-off-by: Brandon Lum <lumjjb@gmail.com>
I fixed some of the ones not caused by changes as drive-bys in this PR. Can't reproduce errors with the same tooling locally for some reason :|. So 🤞 |
looks like all green! PTAL Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good, thanks :)
I noticed that this already fixes #747 |
I ran into long times parsing big SPDX documents that use the
hasFiles
shortcut fields.Handling of
hasFiles
field results in the list of all relationships being iterated through for each package. This change moves the creation ofexisting_relationships_without_comments
to the top level inparse_all_relationships
.Ideally, it would be nice to use a set for more optimal look-up (but that requires Relationship to be hashable, and probably would like a bit more input on how'd you think that would be better implemented).