kconfig: sort found symbols by relevance
diff mbox

Message ID 1367845365-13316-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Yann E. MORIN May 6, 2013, 1:02 p.m. UTC
From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>

When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance.

Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the
length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted
alphabetically.

Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
Cc: Roland Eggner <edvx1@systemanalysen.net>
Cc: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
---
 scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Comments

Jean Delvare May 6, 2013, 3:28 p.m. UTC | #1
Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit :
> From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> 
> When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance.
> 
> Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the
> length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted
> alphabetically.
> 
> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
> Cc: Roland Eggner <edvx1@systemanalysen.net>
> Cc: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
> ---
>  scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for
originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :)

However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your
definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be
immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was
that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than
the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly
have other definitions.

So in the end you have somewhat complex code for a sort order which may
surprise or confuse the user. It may put close to each other options
which are completely unrelated, and suboptions very far from their
parent.

I am wondering if it might not be better to go for a more simple
strategy: exact match on top and then sort alphabetically. Or even just
sort alphabetically - now that I know regexps are supported, it is easy
to get the exact match when I need it.

Just my two cents, maybe others have a diverging opinion.

Thanks for your work anyway,
Yann E. MORIN May 6, 2013, 6:17 p.m. UTC | #2
Jean, All,

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:28:32PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit :
> > From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> > 
> > When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance.
> > 
> > Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the
> > length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted
> > alphabetically.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> > Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
> > Cc: Roland Eggner <edvx1@systemanalysen.net>
> > Cc: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for
> originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :)
> 
> However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your
> definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be
> immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was
> that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than
> the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly
> have other definitions.

Yes, I understand. That was mostly a proposal. I'm open for discussion! :-)

> So in the end you have somewhat complex code for a sort order which may
> surprise or confuse the user. It may put close to each other options
> which are completely unrelated, and suboptions very far from their
> parent.

The notion of "sub-options" is very fuzzy: as symbols are stored in an
hash-based array, it is not possible to now how they relate to each other
order-wise, once the parsing of the Kconfig is done. So we can't expect
the search results to reflect the 'proximity' of symbol declarations.

> I am wondering if it might not be better to go for a more simple
> strategy: exact match on top and then sort alphabetically. Or even just
> sort alphabetically - now that I know regexps are supported, it is easy
> to get the exact match when I need it.

Also, to prefer exact match requires we check how much of the symbol
name was matched (hence my initial 'relevance' heuristic).

However, here is a proposal for another heuristic that seems to work
relatively well for me (but is a very little bit more complex, I'm
afraid), that tries hard to get the most relevant symbols first:

Compare matched symbols as thus:
  - first, symbols with a prompt,   [1]
  - then, smallest offset,          [2]
  - then, shortest match,           [3]
  - then, highest relevance,        [4]
  - finally, alphabetical sort      [5]

When searching for 'P.*CI' :

[1] Symbols of interest are probably those with a prompt, as they can be
    changed, while symbols with no prompt are only for info. Thus:
        PCIEASPM comes before PCI_ATS

[2] Symbols that match earlier in the name are to be preferred over
    symbols which match later. Thus:
        PCI_MSI comes before WDTPCI

[3] The shortest match is (IMHO) more interesting than a longer one.
    Thus:
        PCI comes before PCMCIA

[4] The relevance is the ratio of the length of the match against the
    length of the symbol. The more of a symbol name we match, the more
    instersting that symbol is. Thus:
        PCIEAER comes before PCIEASPM

[5] As fallback, sort symbols alphabetically (no example, it's explicit
    enough, I guess :-) )

Of course 'P.*CI' is really a torture-test search, real searches will
probably be more precise in the first place. This heuristic seems to
also work well with real searches. YMMV, of course...

What do you (and others!) think about this? I'll post the patch shortly
for testing.

> Thanks for your work anyway,

Cheers! :-)

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
wang yanqing May 7, 2013, 1:35 a.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:28:32PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit :
> > From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> > 
> > When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance.
> > 
> > Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the
> > length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted
> > alphabetically.
> I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for
> originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :)
> 
> However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your
> definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be
> immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was
> that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than
> the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly
> have other definitions.

But no matter what the definition of relevance in text search, 
in the middle or start or end, the searcher always want the "results" 
look like what they input literal.

I think Yann's definition make sense. It is just a pattern matching ratio question.

If you want in start, just use ^PCI(reguar search), then with the help of 
this patch, will make people life easier.

This patch is not to replace the regular search, you can just use them together.

BTW, I haven't read the code right now, maybe I will read it tonight.
I test it, it works well, and I find it is useful to use it with regular search.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
index ecc5aa5..baba030 100644
--- a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
+++ b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
@@ -943,38 +943,86 @@  const char *sym_escape_string_value(const char *in)
 	return res;
 }
 
+struct sym_match {
+	struct symbol	*sym;
+	int 		rel;
+};
+
+/* Compare matched symbols as thus:
+ * - highest relevance first
+ * - equal relevance sorted alphabetically
+ */
+static int sym_rel_comp( const void *sym1, const void *sym2 )
+{
+	struct sym_match **s1 = (struct sym_match **)sym1;
+	struct sym_match **s2 = (struct sym_match **)sym2;
+
+	if ( (*s1)->rel > (*s2)->rel )
+		return -1;
+	else if ( (*s1)->rel < (*s2)->rel )
+		return 1;
+	else
+		return strcmp( (*s1)->sym->name, (*s2)->sym->name );
+}
+
 struct symbol **sym_re_search(const char *pattern)
 {
 	struct symbol *sym, **sym_arr = NULL;
+	struct sym_match **sym_match_arr = NULL;
 	int i, cnt, size;
 	regex_t re;
+	regmatch_t match[1];
 
 	cnt = size = 0;
 	/* Skip if empty */
 	if (strlen(pattern) == 0)
 		return NULL;
-	if (regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_EXTENDED|REG_NOSUB|REG_ICASE))
+	if (regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_EXTENDED|REG_ICASE))
 		return NULL;
 
 	for_all_symbols(i, sym) {
+		struct sym_match *tmp_sym_match;
 		if (sym->flags & SYMBOL_CONST || !sym->name)
 			continue;
-		if (regexec(&re, sym->name, 0, NULL, 0))
+		if (regexec(&re, sym->name, 1, match, 0))
 			continue;
 		if (cnt + 1 >= size) {
-			void *tmp = sym_arr;
+			void *tmp;
 			size += 16;
-			sym_arr = realloc(sym_arr, size * sizeof(struct symbol *));
-			if (!sym_arr) {
-				free(tmp);
-				return NULL;
+			tmp = realloc(sym_match_arr, size * sizeof(struct sym_match *));
+			if (!tmp) {
+				goto sym_re_search_free;
 			}
+			sym_match_arr = tmp;
 		}
 		sym_calc_value(sym);
-		sym_arr[cnt++] = sym;
+		tmp_sym_match = (struct sym_match*)malloc(sizeof(struct sym_match));
+		if (!tmp_sym_match)
+			goto sym_re_search_free;
+		tmp_sym_match->sym = sym;
+		/* As regexec return 0, we know we have a match, so
+		 * we can use match[0].rm_[se]o without further checks
+		 */
+		tmp_sym_match->rel = (100*(match[0].rm_eo-match[0].rm_so))
+				     /strlen(sym->name);
+		sym_match_arr[cnt++] = tmp_sym_match;
 	}
-	if (sym_arr)
+
+	if( sym_match_arr ) {
+		qsort( sym_match_arr, cnt, sizeof(struct sym_match*), sym_rel_comp );
+		sym_arr = malloc( (cnt+1) * sizeof(struct symbol) );
+		if (!sym_arr)
+			goto sym_re_search_free;
+		for ( i=0; i<cnt; i++ )
+			sym_arr[i] = sym_match_arr[i]->sym;
 		sym_arr[cnt] = NULL;
+	}
+sym_re_search_free:
+	if (sym_match_arr) {
+		for ( i=0; i<cnt; i++ )
+			free( sym_match_arr[i] );
+		free( sym_match_arr );
+	}
 	regfree(&re);
 
 	return sym_arr;