[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 6/8] message-params: Allow parameter strings to contain escaped curly braces

[Georg Chini]

On 01.08.2018 13:13, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 13:23 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>> On 30.07.2018 11:18, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 22:36 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>> On 29.07.2018 21:47, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:51 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>>> On 27.07.2018 10:08, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 18:02 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26.07.2018 12:37, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 21:11 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22.07.2018 17:48, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 16:02 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21.07.2018 20:17, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 19:35 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Read functions */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         /* Split the specified string into elements. An element is defined as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          * a sub-string between curly braces. The function is needed to parse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          * the parameters of messages. Each time it is called returns the position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          * of the current element in result and the state pointer is advanced to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - * the next list element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * the next list element. On return, the parameter *is_unpacked indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * if the string is plain text or contains a sub-list. is_unpacked may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * be NULL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is_unpacked looks like unnecessary complexity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pa_message_params_read_string() should always unescape the value.
>>>>>> This is not about parameter type, it is just to distinguish between
>>>>>> a list and a simple value. One example comes to my mind immediately:
>>>>>> Consider a parameter list that consists of strings and a couple of
>>>>>> arrays. Now you can read this list as an array of strings (patch 8
>>>>>> provides a function for that) and then examine those strings that
>>>>>> contain arrays separately. Having the flag (and using it in read_string())
>>>>>> provides a more flexible and convenient way to parse a parameter list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The flag may not be strictly necessary at the moment, but I would still
>>>>>> like to keep it.
>>>>> To continue a familiar theme of my review: if there's a
>>>>> read_string_array() function, I want that to be used only for string
>>>>> arrays, not a mishmash of random types. There could be a separate
>>>>> function split_list_into_array() that does something similar to
>>>>> what you wanted to do with read_string_array().
>>>>> split_list_into_array() wouldn't do special string handling,
>>>>> though, so unescaping would be left to the application. I find that
>>>>> only logical, since other basic types don't get special handling
>>>>> either (i.e. floats aren't converted to C floats).
>>>>>
>>>>> Your use case could be served with a vararg function that instead of
>>>>> producing a string array would read into separate variables, like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> pa_message_params_read(c, state,
>>>>>                           PA_TYPE_STRING, &param1,
>>>>>                           PA_TYPE_FLOAT, &param2,
>>>>>                           PA_TYPE_RAW, &param3,
>>>>>                           0);
>>>>>
>>>>> PA_TYPE_RAW would be useful for reading a list (or anything else) into
>>>>> a C string without unescaping or other processing. There could be also
>>>>> PA_TYPE_IGNORE for uninteresting variables, and PA_TYPE_*_ARRAY for
>>>>> arrays of basic types.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Now it occurred to me that the 'c' argument name that is used in the
>>>>> parsing functions is a bit weird and unhelpful. Maybe "param_list"
>>>>> would be good?)
>>>>>
>>>> I still don't see your point. Again, the use of is_unpacked is
>>>> transparent for the
>>>> user of read_string(), so the user just reads a string without having to
>>>> care about
>>>> unescaping. The flag does not complicate the API, it simplifies it
>>>> because the
>>>> unescaping is done automatically.
>>> The flag complicates the split_list() function parameters, but also the
>>> read_string() semantics: you need to explain to the user that unlike
>>> all the other read_foo() functions, read_string() can read any value
>>> and unescaping becomes conditional because of this.
>> read_string() is not supposed to read any value, it is only supposed
>> to read strings. Actually, the user does not need to know anything
>> about escaping, because read_string() and write_string() do the
>> necessary escaping/unescaping completely transparent for the user.
>>
>> The is_unpacked flag is at least useful to check if something returned
>> by split_list() is really a simple type and not a structure or array. I am
>> currently not using it in the read_foo() functions, but I think I should.
> I guess you'd use is_unpacked for catching errors in the read_foo()
> functions? That seems reasonable, but I'd like that to be done in an
> internal function. You said that maybe split_list() could be made an
> internal function, and that seems like a good idea. An alternative
> would be to have an internal function for which split_list() would be a
> simplified wrapper.

I guess I can make split_list() internal.

>
>>>> Your approach seems unnecessary
>>>> complicated to me. A string is a string, even if it contains
>>>> sub-structures. Your
>>>> split_list_into_array() function would basically return an array of
>>>> strings, so what
>>>> would be the advantage? It would only make parsing more cumbersome, because
>>>> the task of unescaping is given to the user instead of doing it
>>>> automatically where
>>>> necessary.
>>> That's why I came up with the vararg function. I agree that
>>> split_list_into_array() is unlikely to be very useful.
>>>
>>>> Also there is no "mishmash of random types", they are all strings It is
>>>> only the
>>>> difference between a "simple" string which needs no further processing and a
>>>> "complex" string which needs further parsing.
>>> The API defines types for the parameters. There are no separate
>>> "simple" and "complex" strings in the type system. The string type is
>>> different than the list type. What you call complex strings are in my
>>> mind just the raw unprocessed serialized data, which is a different
>>> abstraction level than the values that the various read_foo() functions
>>> return. It feels just very wrong to have a function that returns values
>>> in both domains: unparsed raw data and parsed values. Especially when
>>> the function is a family of read_foo() functions where all other
>>> functions only operate on their designated types.
>> Yes, that is some additional functionality that the read_string()
>> function provides on top of reading what I called "simple strings"
>> above. But that does not hinder the function to work exactly
>> like expected when reading a plain string. Maybe a better name
>> for the function would be read_string_element(), indicating that
>> it can read either a plain string or an element of the parameter
>> list as a string.
>> I could split this into two functions, read_string() which always
>> does unescaping and read_element() which would be a wrapper
>> around split_list() and would never do unescaping. In both functions,
>> the is_unpacked flag can be useful to check if the input matches
>> the type "plain string" or "serialized data".
> A separate function for reading the raw data sounds good to me. Are you
> attached to the read_element() name, or could it be read_raw() (or
> perhaps read_raw_value() or read_raw_element())? Somehow read_raw()
> seems better to me, but I can't make strong arguments for why it should
> be called that.
>
read_raw() seems OK as a counterpart to write_raw().