On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 10:19 PM Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 05.02.22 um 21:38 schrieb Amir Sarabadani: > > Codesearch has been working fine in the past couple of years. There is a > new frontend being built and I hope we can deploy it soon to provide a > better user experience and I personally don't see a value in > re-implementing codesearch. Especially using non-open source software. > > While I agree with several points that have been raised, in particular > about licensing and building on top of existing tools, I'd like to point > out that the idea is not to re-implement codesearch, but to overcome some > of its limitations. What we use codesearch for most is finding usages of > methods (and sometimes classes). This works fine if the method name is > fairly unique. But if the method name is generic, or you are moving a > method from one class to another an you want to find callers of the old > method, but not the new method, then regular experssions just don't cut it. > > Ok, why do you think symbol search can't be integrated in the current codesearch? That's what Amir was proposing. Sadly I don't think much of the current code of ClassCrawler can be reused for that goal, and it's a pity. Cheers, Giuseppe -- Giuseppe Lavagetto Principal Site Reliability Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
