[rekonq] Re: Review Request: AdBlock cleanup

[Andrea Diamantini]

> On Feb. 19, 2011, 7:56 p.m., Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> > I am still not a fan of the patch. I think its complexity is high for what it adds, we can probably do better.
> > 
> > I also don't like the idea of adding a branch because there is a rule, but it is invalid. It does not look very clean IMHO.
> > 
> > Alternative ideas:
> > -add a AdBlockRuleNullImpl that always return false for ::match(). And create that in AdBlockRule::AdBlockRule() if there are any unsupported options.
> > -or add AdBlockRule::isValid(). And do not set the m_implementation if there are any unsupported option. The AdBlockManager would not add a rule if it is not valid, so they are never evaluated. 
> > 
> > I am also not a fan of comparing lots of string for each rules. What about keeping a QSet of unsupported options?

In general, I agree your points.
>From the implementation POV, I see some problems/questions to debate.
To decide if a string is a null rule (i.e. not implemented one, yet) we have to parse it BEFORE. This basically means IMHO removing the AdBlockRuleTextMatchImpl::isTextMatchFilter() and implement a more general check, being able to decide if the string is a text rule, a fallback one or has some options not yet implemented (i.e. it is not valid or it is a null one).
>From the memory side, do not add an invalid rule at all should be better, while on the "speed" side, this means also removing/changing the checks on the AdBlockRuleFallbackImpl ctor, to not double parsing every (fallback) rule.
What do you think about?


- Andrea


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/#review1519
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 19, 2011, 6:46 p.m., Andrea Diamantini wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 19, 2011, 6:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for rekonq and Benjamin Poulain.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> AdBlock clean up.
> With this patch we explicitely allow any option that has not been (yet) fully implemented.
> 
> 
> This addresses bugs 248045, 253329 and 265909.
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=248045
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=253329
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=265909
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.h ec10ee5 
>   src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.cpp ae0e14d 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrea
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rekonq/attachments/20110219/d7648ffd/attachment-0001.htm