Remove unnecessary second regex check

[delirious-lettuce]

In some cases, regex.match(hash_to_verify) is being run twice unnecessarily.

• when regex doesn't match
• when regex matches and least_likely=False

This PR fixes that issue.

[Ekultek]

Let me push to the repo before merging it

[Ekultek]

Fix the conflicts for the new verbose flag and I'll merge it

[delirious-lettuce]

@Ekultek ,

Ok, let me take a quick look.

[Ekultek]

Sounds good

On Jul 2, 2017, at 5:11 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

@Ekultek ,

Ok, let me take a quick look.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[delirious-lettuce]

@Ekultek ,

I'm not sure about your commit.

    for regex in HASH_TYPE_REGEX:
        if verbose is True:
            LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(HASH_TYPE_REGEX[regex]))
        if regex.match(hash_to_verify) and least_likely:
            if verbose is True:
                LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(HASH_TYPE_REGEX[regex]))
            return HASH_TYPE_REGEX[regex]
        elif regex.match(hash_to_verify) and not least_likely:
            if verbose is True:
                LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(HASH_TYPE_REGEX[regex]))
            return HASH_TYPE_REGEX[regex][0]

The if verbose is True part is repeated three times with the same message. I'm not sure why the second and third message (inside if there is a regex match) are even needed...? Shouldn't the first one above the regex check be enough? Or should it only log if there is a regex match?

Also, I was reading PEP8 again yesterday and noticed that it is frowned upon to use is True for a boolean.

Yes: if greeting:

No: if greeting == True:

Worse: if greeting is True:

https://pep8.org/#programming-recommendations

[delirious-lettuce]

I could write it like this:

for regex, hash_types in HASH_TYPE_REGEX.iteritems():
    if verbose:
        LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(hash_types))
    if regex.match(hash_to_verify):
        return hash_types if least_likely else hash_types[0]

or like this:

for regex, hash_types in HASH_TYPE_REGEX.iteritems():
    if regex.match(hash_to_verify):
        if verbose:
            LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(hash_types))
        return hash_types if least_likely else hash_types[0]

[Ekultek]

Oops, forgot to remove that, knew I had some commits to push and forgot to check all of them lol my bad, do what you need to do

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 5:27 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

I could write it like this:

for regex, hash_types in HASH_TYPE_REGEX.iteritems(): if verbose: LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(hash_types)) if regex.match(hash_to_verify): return hash_types if least_likely else hash_types[0] or like this:

for regex, hash_types in HASH_TYPE_REGEX.iteritems(): if regex.match(hash_to_verify): if verbose is True: LOGGER.debug("Testing: {}".format(hash_types)) return hash_types if least_likely else hash_types[0] — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[delirious-lettuce]

@Ekultek ,

I was asking because I don't know which way you want it to be. If you want the log to show every different hash that's being tested, it seems like having the message above the regex check if preferable. But if you want only the matches shown, having the message underneath the regex check if preferable.

Just guessing, but the message seems to imply you want them all shown, not just the matches. In other words, remove the log message from inside of the regex check and just leave the one above the regex check...?

[Ekultek]

As I said, you've pushed enough to this project for me to trust what you think is best. You can make the choice on this one man, completely up to you. I would prefer it to show all hashes, however, that would slow things down a bit and I don't want that. So whatever you think is best in game for

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:11 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

@Ekultek ,

I was asking because I don't know which way you want it to be. If you want the log to show every different hash that's being tested, it seems like having the message above the regex check if preferable. But if you want only the matches shown, having the message underneath the regex check if preferable.

Just guessing, but the message seems to imply you want them all shown, not just the matches. In other words, remove the log message from inside of the regex check and just leave the one above the regex check...?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[delirious-lettuce]

@Ekultek ,

I chose to leave all the hashes being logged (as you preferred). It seems like if this is found to be a performance bottleneck, it could always be moved underneath to only show the matches.

As they say, premature optimization is the root of all evil!

[Ekultek]

I'd like to talk to you about granting you access to the repo do you have slack?

[delirious-lettuce]

No slack but I guess I could make one. I use Gitter quite a bit to talk to people from github though.

[Ekultek]

Get slack and lemme know your username I'll send you a request

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:24 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

No, slack but I guess I could make one. I use Gitter quite a bit to talk to people from github though.

— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[delirious-lettuce]

Ok, I'll go try and get signed up.

[Ekultek]

Sounds good bud, lemme know when you're done and I'll send the info to you

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:25 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok, I'll go try and get signed up.

— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[Ekultek]

Need the email you signed up with

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:31 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

delirious.lettuce

[Ekultek]

Sent the invite

• Thomas Perkins

On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:38 PM, delirious-lettuce notifications@github.com wrote:

Oh sorry.

delirious.lettuce@gmail.com

— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.