search for: refactorization

Hi guys, I have one question: When refactoring the working code I need or should refactoring the specs too? My old code is: http://pastie.org/private/gpskgtavm4yzutanq1ro3w My new refactored code: http://pastie.org/private/2emgi1hr5iga3m9jib4q and the specs that are still passing without refactoring: http://pastie.org/private/qn3uaoin0k2n8vjsusssg Regards. -- "Most of you are

Since Jakob had expressed some concerns regarding machine-generated files, I asked him by email about his views on this RFC. Here are the emails that we exchanged in attach. Anyone feel free to jump in via the mailing-list. TIA -- Evandro Menezes Austin, TX emenezes at codeaurora.org Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc is a member of the Code Aurora Forum -------------- next

I'm wondering if there are some tips for refactoring in R. I found the following website, which is still preliminary. Is there any program that can help me do refactoring in R? http://www.r-developer.org/projects/show/refactoring

So, today, I'm using kinit from our initramfs to handle early boot up sequence. Our init is actually a shell script that does a some setup stuff (plugging values into appropriate proc files mostly), and the script currently passes on to kinit by finishing with "exec /kinit "$@"". I have a situation now though, where due to some ubuntu weirdness, I seem to need to do

Hi all, The PowerPC ELF backend of LLD is not in a particularly good state. It supports one relocation, has one test, and it does not seem to have received any commits other than tree-wide refactors since it was initially committed. It is also structured slightly differently to the other backends which means that refactoring patches that touch all the backends are made more difficult. Is anyone

2016-08-25 14:09 GMT+03:00 Pino Toscano <ptoscano@redhat.com>: > On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 23:59:53 CEST Matteo Cafasso wrote: > > The find_inode API allows the User to search all the entries referring > > to a given inode and returns a tsk_dirent structure for each of them. > > > > As I didn't want to change unrelated code, there is a little bit > >

I''ve been thinking about the role that stories played compared to specs, and that "should we use should" thread brought those thoughts up again. First I want to discuss whether or not specs are authoritative regarding the desired behavior of a system. I would say they''re a good approximation of how the system currently runs according to the developer''s

*TL;DR* We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable further work on Flang driver. *SUMMARY* We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by non-C-based languages to LLVM. From our initial investigation we see that these

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Yijing Wang <wangyijing at huawei.com> wrote: > Pci_dev_msi_enabled() is used to check whether device > MSI/MSIX enabled. Refactor this function to suuport > checking only device MSI or MSIX enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing at huawei.com> So this patch refactors things so that checks like this: > - if

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Yijing Wang <wangyijing at huawei.com> wrote: > Pci_dev_msi_enabled() is used to check whether device > MSI/MSIX enabled. Refactor this function to suuport > checking only device MSI or MSIX enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing at huawei.com> So this patch refactors things so that checks like this: > - if

As it currently stands, ActiveRecord has alot of private and protected methods in the Base class. >> ActiveRecord::Base.methods.size => 427 >> ActiveRecord::Base.protected_methods.size => 32 >> ActiveRecord::Base.private_methods.size => 193 I really loved the suggestion by Courtenay in Refactoring AR::Base.find (http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/

The patches contain some tidy-up work, and refactoring that has arisen as a by-product of my initial work on adding TV support to nv50. Best Regards Joel Holdsworth -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-drm-nouveau-Removed-unneeded-include-in-nvc0_fence.c.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 726 bytes Desc: not available URL:

The new "pending" example feature reminds me of a feature I''ve been bouncing around in my head, to aid in refactoring. Often, when I''m changing existing behaviour, I know that certain aspects of the old behaviour should change. Imagine changing the "it" method to perhaps "not" or "old" or "removed"... The behaviour would be to

A couple months ago I asked how stories and specs might impact each other. [1] If you look at Dan North''s example of what''s in a story [2], and you imagine using the spec framework to drive the design, you can probably imagine a significant bit of overlap in the two. Is that a bad thing? I''m not sure. It has made me a bit uncomfortable though, and I''ve

Hi, Attached are two patches. Patch 1 refactors silk_LPC_analysis_filter(). And Patch 2 optimizes the new function celt_fir_permit_overflow() for ARM NEON. Please recommend a better function name. We did the same internal code review and testing already. Thanks, Linfeng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I was wondering if anyone had any advice/experience with when you refactor controllers. Because the controllers are tied to the URL via the routes, it makes refactorings a little more complicated than they should be in some cases, especially if you don''t want the URLs to change. Of course the various filters with :only/except provide an additional flex point to use before a

Looking over the contents of various packages, including my own, it is clear that lots of things end up 'hidden away' in packages where they don't belong. My gregmisc package is a particularly egregious example, containing something from almost every functional category. I propose that from time to time the R community go through the complete set of packages and 'refactor'

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:40:56AM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 23:34:43 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:03:00AM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > > > Due to historical reasons, the implementation of XDP in virtio-net is relatively > > > chaotic. For example, the processing of XDP actions has

Hi Emil, On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 19 May 2016 at 15:39, Lukas Wunner <lukas at wunner.de> wrote: > > +bool vga_switcheroo_client_probe_defer(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > +{ > > + if ((pdev->class >> 8) == PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA) { > Not sure if we want/need this, yet at least. This changes behaviour > which is

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:38 PM Richard Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:08, Andrzej Warzynski via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> *TL;DR* >> >> We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable >> further work on Flang driver. >> >> *SUMMARY* >> We