hugo/output/layout.go

291 lines
6.8 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

// Copyright 2017-present The Hugo Authors. All rights reserved.
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
package output
import (
"strings"
"sync"
"github.com/gohugoio/hugo/helpers"
)
// These may be used as content sections with potential conflicts. Avoid that.
var reservedSections = map[string]bool{
"shortcodes": true,
"partials": true,
}
// LayoutDescriptor describes how a layout should be chosen. This is
// typically built from a Page.
type LayoutDescriptor struct {
Type string
Section string
Kind string
Lang string
Layout string
// LayoutOverride indicates what we should only look for the above layout.
LayoutOverride bool
RenderingHook bool
tpl/tplimpl: Rework template management to get rid of concurrency issues This more or less completes the simplification of the template handling code in Hugo started in v0.62. The main motivation was to fix a long lasting issue about a crash in HTML content files without front matter. But this commit also comes with a big functional improvement. As we now have moved the base template evaluation to the build stage we now use the same lookup rules for `baseof` as for `list` etc. type of templates. This means that in this simple example you can have a `baseof` template for the `blog` section without having to duplicate the others: ``` layouts ├── _default │   ├── baseof.html │   ├── list.html │   └── single.html └── blog └── baseof.html ``` Also, when simplifying code, you often get rid of some double work, as shown in the "site building" benchmarks below. These benchmarks looks suspiciously good, but I have repeated the below with ca. the same result. Compared to master: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 13.1ms ± 1% 10.5ms ± 1% -19.34% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 13.0ms ± 0% 10.7ms ± 1% -18.05% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 46.4ms ± 2% 43.1ms ± 1% -7.15% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 52.2ms ± 2% 47.8ms ± 1% -8.30% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 77.9ms ± 1% 70.9ms ± 1% -9.01% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 43.0ms ± 0% 37.2ms ± 1% -13.54% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 58.2ms ± 1% 52.4ms ± 1% -9.95% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 3.81MB ± 0% 2.22MB ± 0% -41.70% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 3.60MB ± 0% 2.01MB ± 0% -44.20% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 19.3MB ± 1% 14.1MB ± 0% -26.91% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 70.7MB ± 0% 69.0MB ± 0% -2.40% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 37.1MB ± 0% 31.2MB ± 0% -15.94% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 17.6MB ± 0% 10.6MB ± 0% -39.92% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 25.9MB ± 0% 21.2MB ± 0% -17.99% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.18% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.16% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 336k ± 1% 269k ± 0% -19.90% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 422k ± 0% 395k ± 0% -6.43% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 401k ± 0% 313k ± 0% -21.79% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 247k ± 0% 143k ± 0% -42.17% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 282k ± 0% 207k ± 0% -26.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) ``` Fixes #6716 Fixes #6760 Fixes #6768 Fixes #6778
2020-01-15 09:59:56 -05:00
Baseof bool
}
func (d LayoutDescriptor) isList() bool {
return !d.RenderingHook && d.Kind != "page" && d.Kind != "404"
}
// LayoutHandler calculates the layout template to use to render a given output type.
type LayoutHandler struct {
mu sync.RWMutex
cache map[layoutCacheKey][]string
}
type layoutCacheKey struct {
d LayoutDescriptor
f string
}
// NewLayoutHandler creates a new LayoutHandler.
Add support for theme composition and inheritance This commit adds support for theme composition and inheritance in Hugo. With this, it helps thinking about a theme as a set of ordered components: ```toml theme = ["my-shortcodes", "base-theme", "hyde"] ``` The theme definition example above in `config.toml` creates a theme with the 3 components with presedence from left to right. So, Hugo will, for any given file, data entry etc., look first in the project, and then in `my-shortcode`, `base-theme` and lastly `hyde`. Hugo uses two different algorithms to merge the filesystems, depending on the file type: * For `i18n` and `data` files, Hugo merges deeply using the translation id and data key inside the files. * For `static`, `layouts` (templates) and `archetypes` files, these are merged on file level. So the left-most file will be chosen. The name used in the `theme` definition above must match a folder in `/your-site/themes`, e.g. `/your-site/themes/my-shortcodes`. There are plans to improve on this and get a URL scheme so this can be resolved automatically. Also note that a component that is part of a theme can have its own configuration file, e.g. `config.toml`. There are currently some restrictions to what a theme component can configure: * `params` (global and per language) * `menu` (global and per language) * `outputformats` and `mediatypes` The same rules apply here: The left-most param/menu etc. with the same ID will win. There are some hidden and experimental namespace support in the above, which we will work to improve in the future, but theme authors are encouraged to create their own namespaces to avoid naming conflicts. A final note: Themes/components can also have a `theme` definition in their `config.toml` and similar, which is the "inheritance" part of this commit's title. This is currently not supported by the Hugo theme site. We will have to wait for some "auto dependency" feature to be implemented for that to happen, but this can be a powerful feature if you want to create your own theme-variant based on others. Fixes #4460 Fixes #4450
2018-03-01 09:01:25 -05:00
func NewLayoutHandler() *LayoutHandler {
return &LayoutHandler{cache: make(map[layoutCacheKey][]string)}
}
// For returns a layout for the given LayoutDescriptor and options.
// Layouts are rendered and cached internally.
func (l *LayoutHandler) For(d LayoutDescriptor, f Format) ([]string, error) {
// We will get lots of requests for the same layouts, so avoid recalculations.
key := layoutCacheKey{d, f.Name}
l.mu.RLock()
if cacheVal, found := l.cache[key]; found {
l.mu.RUnlock()
return cacheVal, nil
}
l.mu.RUnlock()
layouts := resolvePageTemplate(d, f)
layouts = helpers.UniqueStringsReuse(layouts)
l.mu.Lock()
l.cache[key] = layouts
l.mu.Unlock()
return layouts, nil
}
type layoutBuilder struct {
layoutVariations []string
typeVariations []string
d LayoutDescriptor
f Format
}
func (l *layoutBuilder) addLayoutVariations(vars ...string) {
for _, layoutVar := range vars {
tpl/tplimpl: Rework template management to get rid of concurrency issues This more or less completes the simplification of the template handling code in Hugo started in v0.62. The main motivation was to fix a long lasting issue about a crash in HTML content files without front matter. But this commit also comes with a big functional improvement. As we now have moved the base template evaluation to the build stage we now use the same lookup rules for `baseof` as for `list` etc. type of templates. This means that in this simple example you can have a `baseof` template for the `blog` section without having to duplicate the others: ``` layouts ├── _default │   ├── baseof.html │   ├── list.html │   └── single.html └── blog └── baseof.html ``` Also, when simplifying code, you often get rid of some double work, as shown in the "site building" benchmarks below. These benchmarks looks suspiciously good, but I have repeated the below with ca. the same result. Compared to master: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 13.1ms ± 1% 10.5ms ± 1% -19.34% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 13.0ms ± 0% 10.7ms ± 1% -18.05% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 46.4ms ± 2% 43.1ms ± 1% -7.15% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 52.2ms ± 2% 47.8ms ± 1% -8.30% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 77.9ms ± 1% 70.9ms ± 1% -9.01% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 43.0ms ± 0% 37.2ms ± 1% -13.54% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 58.2ms ± 1% 52.4ms ± 1% -9.95% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 3.81MB ± 0% 2.22MB ± 0% -41.70% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 3.60MB ± 0% 2.01MB ± 0% -44.20% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 19.3MB ± 1% 14.1MB ± 0% -26.91% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 70.7MB ± 0% 69.0MB ± 0% -2.40% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 37.1MB ± 0% 31.2MB ± 0% -15.94% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 17.6MB ± 0% 10.6MB ± 0% -39.92% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 25.9MB ± 0% 21.2MB ± 0% -17.99% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.18% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.16% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 336k ± 1% 269k ± 0% -19.90% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 422k ± 0% 395k ± 0% -6.43% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 401k ± 0% 313k ± 0% -21.79% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 247k ± 0% 143k ± 0% -42.17% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 282k ± 0% 207k ± 0% -26.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) ``` Fixes #6716 Fixes #6760 Fixes #6768 Fixes #6778
2020-01-15 09:59:56 -05:00
if l.d.Baseof && layoutVar != "baseof" {
l.layoutVariations = append(l.layoutVariations, layoutVar+"-baseof")
continue
}
if !l.d.RenderingHook && !l.d.Baseof && l.d.LayoutOverride && layoutVar != l.d.Layout {
continue
}
l.layoutVariations = append(l.layoutVariations, layoutVar)
}
}
func (l *layoutBuilder) addTypeVariations(vars ...string) {
for _, typeVar := range vars {
if !reservedSections[typeVar] {
if l.d.RenderingHook {
typeVar = typeVar + renderingHookRoot
}
l.typeVariations = append(l.typeVariations, typeVar)
}
}
}
func (l *layoutBuilder) addSectionType() {
if l.d.Section != "" {
l.addTypeVariations(l.d.Section)
}
}
func (l *layoutBuilder) addKind() {
l.addLayoutVariations(l.d.Kind)
l.addTypeVariations(l.d.Kind)
}
const renderingHookRoot = "/_markup"
func resolvePageTemplate(d LayoutDescriptor, f Format) []string {
b := &layoutBuilder{d: d, f: f}
if !d.RenderingHook && d.Layout != "" {
b.addLayoutVariations(d.Layout)
}
if d.Type != "" {
b.addTypeVariations(d.Type)
}
if d.RenderingHook {
b.addLayoutVariations(d.Kind)
b.addSectionType()
}
switch d.Kind {
case "page":
b.addLayoutVariations("single")
b.addSectionType()
case "home":
b.addLayoutVariations("index", "home")
// Also look in the root
b.addTypeVariations("")
case "section":
if d.Section != "" {
b.addLayoutVariations(d.Section)
}
b.addSectionType()
b.addKind()
case "term":
b.addKind()
if d.Section != "" {
b.addLayoutVariations(d.Section)
}
b.addLayoutVariations("taxonomy")
b.addTypeVariations("taxonomy")
b.addSectionType()
case "taxonomy":
if d.Section != "" {
b.addLayoutVariations(d.Section + ".terms")
}
b.addSectionType()
b.addLayoutVariations("terms")
// For legacy reasons this is deliberately put last.
b.addKind()
case "404":
b.addLayoutVariations("404")
b.addTypeVariations("")
}
isRSS := f.Name == RSSFormat.Name
tpl/tplimpl: Rework template management to get rid of concurrency issues This more or less completes the simplification of the template handling code in Hugo started in v0.62. The main motivation was to fix a long lasting issue about a crash in HTML content files without front matter. But this commit also comes with a big functional improvement. As we now have moved the base template evaluation to the build stage we now use the same lookup rules for `baseof` as for `list` etc. type of templates. This means that in this simple example you can have a `baseof` template for the `blog` section without having to duplicate the others: ``` layouts ├── _default │   ├── baseof.html │   ├── list.html │   └── single.html └── blog └── baseof.html ``` Also, when simplifying code, you often get rid of some double work, as shown in the "site building" benchmarks below. These benchmarks looks suspiciously good, but I have repeated the below with ca. the same result. Compared to master: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 13.1ms ± 1% 10.5ms ± 1% -19.34% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 13.0ms ± 0% 10.7ms ± 1% -18.05% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 46.4ms ± 2% 43.1ms ± 1% -7.15% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 52.2ms ± 2% 47.8ms ± 1% -8.30% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 77.9ms ± 1% 70.9ms ± 1% -9.01% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 43.0ms ± 0% 37.2ms ± 1% -13.54% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 58.2ms ± 1% 52.4ms ± 1% -9.95% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 3.81MB ± 0% 2.22MB ± 0% -41.70% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 3.60MB ± 0% 2.01MB ± 0% -44.20% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 19.3MB ± 1% 14.1MB ± 0% -26.91% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 70.7MB ± 0% 69.0MB ± 0% -2.40% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 37.1MB ± 0% 31.2MB ± 0% -15.94% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 17.6MB ± 0% 10.6MB ± 0% -39.92% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 25.9MB ± 0% 21.2MB ± 0% -17.99% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.18% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.16% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 336k ± 1% 269k ± 0% -19.90% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 422k ± 0% 395k ± 0% -6.43% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 401k ± 0% 313k ± 0% -21.79% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 247k ± 0% 143k ± 0% -42.17% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 282k ± 0% 207k ± 0% -26.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) ``` Fixes #6716 Fixes #6760 Fixes #6768 Fixes #6778
2020-01-15 09:59:56 -05:00
if !d.RenderingHook && !d.Baseof && isRSS {
// The historic and common rss.xml case
b.addLayoutVariations("")
}
if d.Baseof || d.Kind != "404" {
// Most have _default in their lookup path
b.addTypeVariations("_default")
}
if d.isList() {
// Add the common list type
b.addLayoutVariations("list")
}
tpl/tplimpl: Rework template management to get rid of concurrency issues This more or less completes the simplification of the template handling code in Hugo started in v0.62. The main motivation was to fix a long lasting issue about a crash in HTML content files without front matter. But this commit also comes with a big functional improvement. As we now have moved the base template evaluation to the build stage we now use the same lookup rules for `baseof` as for `list` etc. type of templates. This means that in this simple example you can have a `baseof` template for the `blog` section without having to duplicate the others: ``` layouts ├── _default │   ├── baseof.html │   ├── list.html │   └── single.html └── blog └── baseof.html ``` Also, when simplifying code, you often get rid of some double work, as shown in the "site building" benchmarks below. These benchmarks looks suspiciously good, but I have repeated the below with ca. the same result. Compared to master: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 13.1ms ± 1% 10.5ms ± 1% -19.34% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 13.0ms ± 0% 10.7ms ± 1% -18.05% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 46.4ms ± 2% 43.1ms ± 1% -7.15% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 52.2ms ± 2% 47.8ms ± 1% -8.30% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 77.9ms ± 1% 70.9ms ± 1% -9.01% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 43.0ms ± 0% 37.2ms ± 1% -13.54% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 58.2ms ± 1% 52.4ms ± 1% -9.95% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 3.81MB ± 0% 2.22MB ± 0% -41.70% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 3.60MB ± 0% 2.01MB ± 0% -44.20% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 19.3MB ± 1% 14.1MB ± 0% -26.91% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 70.7MB ± 0% 69.0MB ± 0% -2.40% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 37.1MB ± 0% 31.2MB ± 0% -15.94% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 17.6MB ± 0% 10.6MB ± 0% -39.92% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 25.9MB ± 0% 21.2MB ± 0% -17.99% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.18% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.16% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 336k ± 1% 269k ± 0% -19.90% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 422k ± 0% 395k ± 0% -6.43% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 401k ± 0% 313k ± 0% -21.79% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 247k ± 0% 143k ± 0% -42.17% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 282k ± 0% 207k ± 0% -26.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) ``` Fixes #6716 Fixes #6760 Fixes #6768 Fixes #6778
2020-01-15 09:59:56 -05:00
if d.Baseof {
b.addLayoutVariations("baseof")
}
layouts := b.resolveVariations()
tpl/tplimpl: Rework template management to get rid of concurrency issues This more or less completes the simplification of the template handling code in Hugo started in v0.62. The main motivation was to fix a long lasting issue about a crash in HTML content files without front matter. But this commit also comes with a big functional improvement. As we now have moved the base template evaluation to the build stage we now use the same lookup rules for `baseof` as for `list` etc. type of templates. This means that in this simple example you can have a `baseof` template for the `blog` section without having to duplicate the others: ``` layouts ├── _default │   ├── baseof.html │   ├── list.html │   └── single.html └── blog └── baseof.html ``` Also, when simplifying code, you often get rid of some double work, as shown in the "site building" benchmarks below. These benchmarks looks suspiciously good, but I have repeated the below with ca. the same result. Compared to master: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 13.1ms ± 1% 10.5ms ± 1% -19.34% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 13.0ms ± 0% 10.7ms ± 1% -18.05% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 46.4ms ± 2% 43.1ms ± 1% -7.15% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 52.2ms ± 2% 47.8ms ± 1% -8.30% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 77.9ms ± 1% 70.9ms ± 1% -9.01% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 43.0ms ± 0% 37.2ms ± 1% -13.54% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 58.2ms ± 1% 52.4ms ± 1% -9.95% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 3.81MB ± 0% 2.22MB ± 0% -41.70% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 3.60MB ± 0% 2.01MB ± 0% -44.20% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 19.3MB ± 1% 14.1MB ± 0% -26.91% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 70.7MB ± 0% 69.0MB ± 0% -2.40% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 37.1MB ± 0% 31.2MB ± 0% -15.94% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 17.6MB ± 0% 10.6MB ± 0% -39.92% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 25.9MB ± 0% 21.2MB ± 0% -17.99% (p=0.029 n=4+4) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SiteNew/Bundle_with_image-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.18% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Bundle_with_JSON_file-16 52.3k ± 0% 26.1k ± 0% -50.16% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Tags_and_categories-16 336k ± 1% 269k ± 0% -19.90% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Canonify_URLs-16 422k ± 0% 395k ± 0% -6.43% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Deep_content_tree-16 401k ± 0% 313k ± 0% -21.79% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Many_HTML_templates-16 247k ± 0% 143k ± 0% -42.17% (p=0.029 n=4+4) SiteNew/Page_collections-16 282k ± 0% 207k ± 0% -26.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) ``` Fixes #6716 Fixes #6760 Fixes #6768 Fixes #6778
2020-01-15 09:59:56 -05:00
if !d.RenderingHook && !d.Baseof && isRSS {
layouts = append(layouts, "_internal/_default/rss.xml")
}
return layouts
}
func (l *layoutBuilder) resolveVariations() []string {
var layouts []string
var variations []string
name := strings.ToLower(l.f.Name)
if l.d.Lang != "" {
// We prefer the most specific type before language.
variations = append(variations, []string{l.d.Lang + "." + name, name, l.d.Lang}...)
} else {
variations = append(variations, name)
}
variations = append(variations, "")
for _, typeVar := range l.typeVariations {
for _, variation := range variations {
for _, layoutVar := range l.layoutVariations {
if variation == "" && layoutVar == "" {
continue
}
s := constructLayoutPath(typeVar, layoutVar, variation, l.f.MediaType.Suffix())
if s != "" {
layouts = append(layouts, s)
}
}
}
}
return layouts
}
// constructLayoutPath constructs a layout path given a type, layout,
// variations, and extension. The path constructed follows the pattern of
// type/layout.variations.extension. If any value is empty, it will be left out
// of the path construction.
//
// Path construction requires at least 2 of 3 out of layout, variations, and extension.
// If more than one of those is empty, an empty string is returned.
func constructLayoutPath(typ, layout, variations, extension string) string {
// we already know that layout and variations are not both empty because of
// checks in resolveVariants().
if extension == "" && (layout == "" || variations == "") {
return ""
}
// Commence valid path construction...
var (
p strings.Builder
needDot bool
)
if typ != "" {
p.WriteString(typ)
p.WriteString("/")
}
if layout != "" {
p.WriteString(layout)
needDot = true
}
if variations != "" {
if needDot {
p.WriteString(".")
}
p.WriteString(variations)
needDot = true
}
if extension != "" {
if needDot {
p.WriteString(".")
}
p.WriteString(extension)
}
return p.String()
}