From d54dbc93df44da9dd0f149a384572f818b5cc318 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ichthyostega Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:42:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Invocation: verify connectivity on complex network --- tests/core/steam/engine/node-link-test.cpp | 50 ++++++++-- wiki/thinkPad.ichthyo.mm | 111 ++++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/core/steam/engine/node-link-test.cpp b/tests/core/steam/engine/node-link-test.cpp index d8c624493..da7abf14c 100644 --- a/tests/core/steam/engine/node-link-test.cpp +++ b/tests/core/steam/engine/node-link-test.cpp @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ #include "lib/test/run.hpp" #include "steam/engine/proc-node.hpp" #include "steam/engine/node-builder.hpp" -#include "steam/engine/test-rand-ontology.hpp" ///////////TODO +#include "steam/engine/test-rand-ontology.hpp" #include "lib/test/diagnostic-output.hpp"/////////////////TODO #include "lib/util.hpp" @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ using std::array; using util::isnil; -//using std::string; using util::isSameObject; @@ -119,7 +118,16 @@ namespace test { /** @test Build more elaborate Render Nodes linked into a connectivity network - * @todo WIP 1/25 🔁 define ⟶ ✔ implement + * - verify nodes with several ports; at exit-level, 3 ports are available + * - using two different source nodes, one with two, one with three ports + * - the 2-port source is linearly chained to a 2-port filter node + * - the exit-level is a mix node, combining data from both chains + * - apply the automatic wiring of ports with the same number, whereby + * the first port connects to the first port on the lead, and so on. + * - yet for the 3rd port at the mix node, on one side the port number + * must be given explicitly, since the »A-side« chain offers only + * two ports. + * @todo 1/25 ✔ define ⟶ ✔ implement */ void build_connected_nodes() @@ -143,11 +151,11 @@ namespace test { auto add1_op = [](int* src, int* res){ *res = 1 + *src; }; ProcNode n1f{prepareNode("filterA") .preparePort() - .invoke("+1(int)(int)", add1_op) + .invoke("a+1(int)(int)", add1_op) .connectLead(n1s) .completePort() .preparePort() - .invoke("+1(int)(int)", add1_op) + .invoke("b+1(int)(int)", add1_op) .connectLead(n1s) .completePort() .build()}; @@ -211,7 +219,7 @@ namespace test { CHECK (watch(n2s).getNodeSpec() == "srcB-◎"_expect ); CHECK (watch(mix).getNodeSpec() == "mix┉┉{srcA, srcB}"_expect); - // verify setup of th source nodes + // verify setup of the source nodes CHECK (watch(n1s).ports().size() == 2 ); CHECK (watch(n1s).watchPort(0).isSrc()); CHECK (watch(n1s).watchPort(1).isSrc()); @@ -220,6 +228,7 @@ namespace test { CHECK (watch(n1s).getPortSpec(0) == "srcA.a(int)"_expect ); CHECK (watch(n1s).getPortSpec(1) == "srcA.b(int)"_expect ); + // second source node has 3 ports.... CHECK (watch(n2s).ports().size() == 3 ); CHECK (watch(n2s).watchPort(0).isSrc()); CHECK (watch(n2s).watchPort(1).isSrc()); @@ -241,6 +250,35 @@ namespace test { CHECK (watch(n1f).watchLead(0).watchPort(0).getProcSpec() == "srcA.a(int)"_expect ); CHECK (watch(n1f).watchPort(0).srcPorts()[0] == watch(n1f).watchLead(0).ports()[0]); CHECK (watch(n1f).watchPort(1).srcPorts()[0] == watch(n1f).watchLead(0).ports()[1]); + + // verify mix with 3 ports + CHECK (watch(mix).leads().size() == 2); + CHECK (watch(mix).leads()[0] == n1f ); + CHECK (watch(mix).leads()[1] == n2s ); + CHECK (watch(mix).ports().size() == 3); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(0).srcPorts().size() == 2 ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(1).srcPorts().size() == 2 ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(2).srcPorts().size() == 2 ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(0).ports().size() == 2 ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(1).ports().size() == 3 ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(0).watchLead(0).getProcName() == "filterA.a+1"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(0).watchPort(0).getProcName() == "filterA.a+1"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(1).watchLead(0).getProcName() == "filterA.b+1"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(0).watchPort(1).getProcName() == "filterA.b+1"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(2).watchLead(0).getProcName() == "filterA.b+1"_expect ); // special connection to port 1 on lead + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(0).watchPort(1).getProcName() == "filterA.b+1"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(0).srcPorts()[0] == watch(mix).watchLead(0).ports()[0]); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(1).srcPorts()[0] == watch(mix).watchLead(0).ports()[1]); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(2).srcPorts()[0] == watch(mix).watchLead(0).ports()[1]); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(0).watchLead(1).getProcName() == "srcB.a"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(1).watchPort(0).getProcName() == "srcB.a"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(1).watchLead(1).getProcName() == "srcB.b"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(1).watchPort(1).getProcName() == "srcB.b"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(2).watchLead(1).getProcName() == "srcB.c"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchLead(1).watchPort(2).getProcName() == "srcB.c"_expect ); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(0).srcPorts()[1] == watch(mix).watchLead(1).ports()[0]); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(1).srcPorts()[1] == watch(mix).watchLead(1).ports()[1]); + CHECK (watch(mix).watchPort(2).srcPorts()[1] == watch(mix).watchLead(1).ports()[2]); } diff --git a/wiki/thinkPad.ichthyo.mm b/wiki/thinkPad.ichthyo.mm index 8b00990a1..fdcff44bc 100644 --- a/wiki/thinkPad.ichthyo.mm +++ b/wiki/thinkPad.ichthyo.mm @@ -92380,9 +92380,9 @@ Date:   Thu Apr 20 18:53:17 2023 +0200
- + - + @@ -92405,8 +92405,8 @@ Date:   Thu Apr 20 18:53:17 2023 +0200
 - - + + @@ -103075,7 +103075,6 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - @@ -103332,8 +103331,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) das ist inhaltlich falsch!

- - + @@ -103353,8 +103351,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) ⟹ jeder Lead erscheint als neu

- - + @@ -103396,8 +103393,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) die Proc-ID ist hier nur der Implementierungs-Ort, weil es auf der Node selber gar keine entsprechende Einrichtung gibt — der Node-Name ist in die Proc-ID aufgedoppelt, um auch für einen Port noch eine sinnvolle Diagnostik zu bieten; diese Redundanz nehme ich in Kauf (ist jeweils ein Pointer); im Gegenzug verzichte ich aber auf eine separate Node-ID, indem die Proc-ID hilfsweise auch die Node-Spec mit implemenitert

- - + @@ -103421,8 +103417,8 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + + @@ -103455,9 +103451,10 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - + + @@ -104020,6 +104017,14 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) + + + + + + + + @@ -105054,8 +105059,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) Fazit: Weaving-Patterns

- - + @@ -105251,8 +105255,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) wäre nämlich zusätzlicher Coding-Aufwand — und dabei weitgehend redundant

- - + @@ -106961,8 +106964,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) Da wir nun weitgehend auf explizite Typisierung und Templates setzen (Tupel als Argumente der Processing-Function), sind Detail-Implementierungen in den Spezialisierungen der Weaving-Pattern untergebracht, oder werden sogar als Funktoren aus dem Library-Plug-in eingebunden

- - + @@ -106983,8 +106985,8 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + + @@ -106997,9 +106999,10 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - + - + + @@ -107024,8 +107027,7 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) in einer einzigen Test-Node-Topologie

- - + @@ -107044,16 +107046,15 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + - - + + @@ -107067,23 +107068,24 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + + + - - + + - - + + - + - - + + - - + + @@ -107105,13 +107107,16 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + + + + + @@ -107313,8 +107318,8 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - - + + @@ -107343,8 +107348,9 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - + + @@ -107355,18 +107361,9 @@ StM_bind(Builder<R1> b1, Extension<R1,R2> extension) - + + - - - - - - - - - -