Re: cleaning perl code

On 4/16/20 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-16, Hamlin, Garick L wrote:
>
>> With the old expression 'something;' would be stripped away.  
>> Is that an issue where this this is used?  Why are we parsing
>> these headers?
> These are files from which bootstrap catalog data is generated, which is
> why we parse from Perl; but also where C structs are declared, which is
> why they're C.
>
> I think switching to non-greedy is a win in itself.  Non-capturing
> parens is probably a wash (this doesn't run often so the performance
> argument isn't very interesting).


Yeah, I'm inclined to fix this independently of the perlcritic stuff.
The change is more readable and more correct as well as being perlcritic
friendly.


I might take a closer look at Catalog.pm.


Meanwhile, the other regex highlighted in the patch, in Solution.pm:


if (/^AC_INIT\(\[([^\]]+)\], \[([^\]]+)\], \[([^\]]+)\], \[([^\]]*)\],
\[([^\]]+)\]/)


is sufficiently horrid that I think we should see if we can rewrite it,
maybe as an extended regex. And a better fix here instead of marking the
fourth group as non-capturing would be simply to get rid of the parens
altogether. The serve no purpose at all.


>
> An example.  This eval in Catalog.pm
>
> +               ## no critic (ProhibitStringyEval)
> +               ## no critic (RequireCheckingReturnValueOfEval)
> +               eval '$hash_ref = ' . $_;
>
> is really weird stuff generally speaking, and the fact that we have to
> mark it specially for critic is a good indicator of that -- it serves as
> documentation.  Catalog.pm is all a huge weird hack, but it's a critically
> important hack.  Heck, what about RequireCheckingReturnValueOfEval --
> should we instead consider actually checking the return value of eval?
> It would seem to make sense, would it not?  (Not for this patch, though
> -- I would be fine with just adding the nocritic line now, and removing
> it later while fixing that).


+1


>
> All in all, I think it's a positive value in having this code be checked
> with a bit more strength -- checks that are pointless in, say, t/00*.pl
> prove files.



thanks


cheers


andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services