On 2009-03-14 05:36:27 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Ricky and I have both looked at the code in
fas/safasprovider.py::SaFasIdentity and think that it's safe to cache
this. The TG-1.0.8 saprovider on which safasprovider is based does not
cache this but I've looked at the code and it seems like their provider
only uses the variable in question a maximum of two times during a
request. The CSRF protection that we've enabled needs to use this
variable more often.
Here's the code:
--- a/fas/safasprovider.py
+++ b/fas/safasprovider.py
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ class SaFasIdentity(object):
def __init__(self, visit_key=None, user=None, using_ssl=False):
self.visit_key = visit_key
+ self._visit_link = None
if user:
self._user = user
if visit_key is not None:
@@ -201,9 +202,13 @@ class SaFasIdentity(object):
### TG: Same as TG-1.0.8
def _get_visit_link(self):
'''Get the visit link to this identity.'''
+ if self._visit_link:
+ return self.visit_link
I already mentioned this to Toshio, but this
line should be changed
to return self._visit_link
if self.visit_key is None:
- return None
- return
visit_class.query.filter_by(visit_key=self.visit_key).first()
+ self._visit_link = None
+ else:
+ self._visit_link =
visit_class.query.filter_by(visit_key=self.visi
t_key).first()
+ return self._visit_link
visit_link = property(_get_visit_link)
If we were outside of freeze, I would apply this as it is causing issues
for some of the things that talk to fas (like zodbot and developer
instances of pkgdb).
+1
As Toshio mentioned, we've looked at the places where this variable is
used, and it should be safe (and easy to revert otherwise). This will
be a giant performance improvement for code where we call filter_private
on a lot of users (which is a lot of places).
Thanks,
Ricky