def hash_code(code):
return hashlib.md5(code.encode()).hexdigest()
Your example isn't really a problem with OPs utility, but a specific example of a broader dependency management problem that affects just about everything. The answers usually boil down to 1) invest heavily in a kick ass test suite, 2) never upgrade or 3) upgrade and pray nothing breaks.
Pretty much. Recursively collect dependencies by analyzing the AST of the code.
> And then if one minor update And let's say the dependency did change, but it's generally inert (more error handling around edge cases, for example), how do you factor that in? Blow up the whole cache?
You're saying that like it's some kind of ridiculous ask, but yes. The current implementation is already "Blow[ing] up the whole cache" whenever the code for the decorated function is changed anyways. I'd guess that additionally handling dependencies recursively would only modestly increase the rate of "Blow[ing] up the whole cache".
> Your example isn't really a problem with OPs utility...
Whether or not this is a problem in practice obviously depends on your use case. Maybe you don't generally care if functions return the correct result, but many do.
> [This is] a specific example of a broader dependency management problem that affects just about everything.
Dependency resolution is not trivial per se, but it's a pretty common problem. Every single package manager, build system (make), etc. have all solved this.
Sha1 is a better choice even for non-cryptographic use cases, it's quite a bit faster than md5. Even better would be something like xxhash!
According to a quick bash script I wrote to benchmark the popular hash functions, md5 comes out last compared to sha1, sha256, sha512, and blake2, and by a decent margin!
A good rule of thumb is to never use md5 at all. Not even for non-cryptographic use cases. It's not only broken, but also very slow!