Re: [PATCH v2] ol-info: Define :insert-description function

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

> On 19/08/2022 11:28, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> Max Nikulin writes:
>> 
>>> +(defun org-info--link-file-node (path)
>>> +  "Extract file name and node from info link PATH.
>>> +
>>> +Return cons consisting of file name and node name or \"Top\" if node
>>> +part is not specified. Components may be separated by \":\" or by \"#\"."
>> 
>> It looks like the docstring does not match what the function actually
>> returns.
>
> It returns a cons, doesn't it? Is it confusing that separator for 
> components is related to the argument?

It is confusing that cons consist of _file name_ and node name.
However, the function may return non-file as car of the cons.

>>> +  (if (not path)
>>> +      '("dir" . "Top")
>> 
>> "dir" is not a file. Also, it is not very clear what "dir" is referring
>> to. Maybe you can add a comment pointing to `org-info-other-documents'?
>
> Try M-x info RET when you do not have *info* buffer and you get "(dir) 
> Top" node. It is the directory of info files. If you run "info" without 
> argument in shell you will get the same.

Sure. I know this. But see the above. Not every person reading the Org
source is familiar with info conventions.

>>> +    (string-match "\\`\\([^#:]*\\)\\(?:[#:]:?\\(.*\\)\\)?\\'" path)
>>> +    (let* ((node (match-string 2 path))
>>> +           ;; `string-trim' modifies match
>> 
>> Here and is several other places, including docstrings, please make sure
>> that the sentences end with "." and are separated with "  ".
>
> It was supposed to be a brief phrase rather than complete sentence.

What about other places like the docstring?
Or

+      ;; Unlike (info "dir"), "info dir" shell command opens "(coreutils)dir invocation"

(missing ".")

probably some more places.

(Of course, this is minor, and I could do it myself; just pointed this
together with other more important comments)

>>> +      (cons
>>> +       ;; Fallback to "org" is an arbirtrary choice
>>> +       ;; and added because "(dir)filename" does not work as "filename".
>> 
>> Should this be documented? Or at least mentioned that the behaviour is
>> undefined. And if it is undefined you should not test it in the tests.
>
> The purpose of test is to check that it does not signal some obscure 
> error. I am unsure how to handle corner cases, so I am open to 
> suggestions. Some considerations
> - `org-info--link-file-node' may return nil when link path is incomplete 
> or some value that may help to avoid error handling code paths in callers.
> - <info:> does not look like a valid link but it may be handled like 
> shell "info" command without argument, so I chose "(dir)" node. Elisp 
> (info) without arguments however may display existing buffer.
> - <info:dir> certainly should be handled as (info "(dir)")
> - <info:dir#elisp> is invalid. Maybe (info "elisp") should be used instead.
> - <info:#Tables> I am unsure in my choice to open (info "(org) Tables"). 
> Maybe it is better to treat it as "(dir) Tables" and so as "(dir) Top" 
> node since "(dir) Top" is quite reasonable for <info:> with empty path.

I am not sure what would be the best here. The main point - whatever
fallback mechanism you choose, please document it in the docstring.

In general, I favour having a fallback more compared to not having any.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92