mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

info --json: Improve json for "backend usage", using a nested object with fields for each backend instead of the previous weird nested lists. This may break existing parsers of this json output, if there were any.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2016-01-01 16:33:05 -04:00
parent 09a2fcb643
commit 121659576b
Failed to extract signature
3 changed files with 28 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
Command/Info.hs
View file

@ -12,7 +12,6 @@ module Command.Info where
import "mtl" Control.Monad.State.Strict
import qualified Data.Map.Strict as M
import Text.JSON
import Data.Tuple
import Data.Ord
import Common.Annex
@ -403,9 +402,9 @@ disk_size = simpleStat "available local disk space" $
backend_usage :: Stat
backend_usage = stat "backend usage" $ json fmt $
sort . M.toList . backendsKeys <$> cachedReferencedData
toJSObject . sort . M.toList . backendsKeys <$> cachedReferencedData
where
fmt = multiLine . map (\(n, b) -> b ++ ": " ++ show n) . map swap
fmt = multiLine . map (\(b, n) -> b ++ ": " ++ show n) . fromJSObject
numcopies_stats :: Stat
numcopies_stats = stat "numcopies stats" $ json fmt $

3
debian/changelog vendored
View file

@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ git-annex (6.20151219) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
there.
* info: Fix "backend usage" numbers, which were counting present keys
twice.
* info --json: Improve json for "backend usage", using a nested object
with fields for each backend instead of the previous weird nested lists.
This may break existing parsers of this json output, if there were any.
-- Joey Hess <id@joeyh.name> Sat, 19 Dec 2015 13:31:17 -0400

23
doc/bugs/info_--json_lists_backend_usage_stats_as_a_list_of_lists/comment_1_5db5f19d9bdc81839d984b7e302e49ed._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="joey"
subject="""comment 1"""
date="2016-01-01T20:27:27Z"
content="""
It was indeed a bug that it counted both keys referenced in the work tree
and keys whose content was present. Fixed.
It's not hard to fix the json format, but then what happens to anything
that may be parsing the existing format? I could use a different field
for the better formatted version and keep the old version in the current
field, but if the goal is to make the json better, that doesn't really
work.
Since the old output is so funky, it seems likely to me you're the first
one to try to consume it since anyone reasonable would file a but report
about it and you're the first who did.
So.. I guess I'll change the json format and see if anyone complains.
I have to say that this business of not having any specification other
than what it currently is, is what annoys me about JSON as a consumer of it.
"""]]