[MERGE] Packs. Kthxbye.

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



...
> 
> Your "plan_autopack_combinations" seems interesting. I'm not sure if the
> algorithm is 100% correct.
> Take this example: existing_packs = 50, 40, 12, 7, 3
> 50+40+12+7+3 = 112
> pack_distribution = 100, 10, 1, 1
> 
> I tried to walk through what it would do, but it seems to do very weird
> things
> when trying to add them in.


It seems I was wrong in my guess. It does what I would expect it to, just the
way the loop was written confused me.
It would probably be good to have a few more tests.

Also, I agree with Ian that returning [0, []] is a little odd. You can add
these lines:
    if pack_operations[-1] == [0, []]:
        pack_operations.pop()

    return pack_operations

Which will remove it before returning.

The current algorithm ensures that you get approximately the right pack sizes.
A given repack won't pack it to more than 2x the expected size. (If you are
trying to pack to 100, and you have 2 packs of size 99, you will get one with 198.)

So you can have a test for something like:
  existing = [(50, '50'), (40, '40'), (12, '12'), (7, '7'), (3, '3')]
should give:
  [[102, ['50', '40', '12']], [10, ['7', '3']]]

The only thing I don't like is that these functions are defined as regular
class functions, but have 0 dependency on self. So it would be nice if they
were @staticmethod so that you wouldn't have to instantiate a repository to
test them.

Though I believe you don't prefer staticmethods for some reason.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHF7/fJdeBCYSNAAMRAsaDAJ4iItbJOVcQyDpQ4gehV/KoYaDXdgCeNxEd
GrtcvwVClM9FUinxN4JDq1k=
=EROt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----