ListType not supported in types.py in Python3
Why do we require ListType?
To do something like
if type(item) is ListType:
....
But types.py does not have ListType anymore
A solution could be
if isinstance(item, list):
TODO: WIP-remove these comments and fix the code or replace BuilderGCH
The build system Scons switched from using Python 2.7 to using
Python 3.x, so the build breaks on, for example, Debian Bullseye.
As a first step use `ato3` to convert Python scripts from 2 to 3.
With the ability to invoke a Render Node graph,
the development on branch `play` reached some kind of milestone
regarding the »Playback Vertical Slice«.
This is a good opportunity to update the reference platform
and upgrade the preview releases and packaging setup accordingly.
This will include adjustments to compile on recent compilers and
upgrade the build system to support Python-3.
Based on the building blocks developed thus far,
it was possible to assemble a typical media processing chain
* two source nodes
* one of these passes data through a filter
* a mixer node on top to combine both chains
* time-based automation for processing parameters
As actual computation, hash-chaining on blocks of
reproducible random data was used, allowing to verify
for every data word that expected computations were
carried out, in the expected order.
Using basically the same topology as in the preceding test, which focused on connectivity. However, in this case we retrieve actual processing functions from the »Test-Rand« ontology in order to perform hash-chaining computations on full data blocks. And, in addition, a »Param Agent Node« is used.
While initially intended as introductory test, it meanwhile
focuses on intricate technical details on the level of
basic building blocks, notably the `FeedManifold`
Now I have added a simple end-to-end demonstration example
how a Render Node is built from scratch, leaving out all
technical details and all convenience front-ends like
the `NodeBuilder` — just one dummy port invoked directly.
NodeBase_test demonstrates the building blocks of a Render Node,
and verifies low-level mechanics of those building blocks, which
can be quite technical. At the top of this test however are some
very basic interactions, which serve as an introduction.
__Remark__: renamed the low-level technical dispatch-access
for the parameter-accessors in `TurnoutSystem` to be more obvious,
and added comment (I was confused myself how to use them properly)
This is a crucial feature, discovered only late, while building
an overall integration test: it is quite common for processing functionality
to require both a technical, and an artistic parametrisation. Obviously,
both are configured from quite different sources, and thus we need a way
to pre-configure ''some parameter values,'' while addressing other ones
later by an automation function. Probably there will be further similar
requirements, regarding the combination of automation and fixed
user-provided settings (but I'll leave that for later to settle).
On a technical level, wiring such independent sources of information
can be quite a challenging organisational problem — which however can be
decomposed using ''partial function closure'' (as building a value tuple
can be packaged into a builder function). Thus in the end I was able to
delegate a highly technical problem to an existing generic library function.
* now able to demonstrate close-front, close-back and close-argument
* can also apply the same cases to `std::array`, with input and
output type seamlessly adapted to `std::array`
__Summary__:
* the first part to prepare a binding involves creating a mapped tuple,
with re-ordered elements and some elements replaced by placehoder-markers.
This part **must not use RValue-References** (doing so would be possible
only under very controlled conditions)
* the second part, which transports these mapped-tuple elements into the binder
''could be converted to perfect-forwarding.'' This would require to replace
the `Apply<N>' by a variadic template, delegating to `std::apply` and `std::bind`
With this changeset, I have modernised a lot of typedefs to make them more legible,
and I have introduced perfect-forwarding in the entrance path, up to the point
where the values are passed to `TupleConstructor`.
With these additions, all conceivable cases are basically addressed.
Take this as opportunity to investigate how the existing implementation
transports values into the Binder, where they will be stored as data fields.
Notably the mechanism of the `TupleConstructor` / `ElmMapper` indeed
''essentially requires'' to pass the initialisers ''by-reference'',
because otherwise there would be limitations on possible mappings.
This implies that not much can be done for ''perfect forwarding'' of initialisers,
but at least the `BindToArgument` can be simplified to take the value directly.
...which should ''basically work,'' since `std::array` is ''»tuple-like«'' —
BUT unfortunately it has a quite distinct template signature which does not fit
into the generic scheme of a product type.
Obviously we'd need a partial specialisation, but even re-implementing this
turns out to be damn hard, because there is no way to generate a builder method
with a suitable explicit type signature directly, because such a builder would
need to accept precisely N arguments of same type. This leads to a different
solution approach: we can introduce an ''adapter type'', which will be layered
on top of `std::array` and just expose the proper type signature so that the
existing Implementation can handle the array, relying on the tuple-protocol.
__Note__: this changeset adds a convenient pretty-printer for `std::array`,
based on the same forward-declaration trick employed recently for `lib::Several`.
You need to include 'lib/format-util.hpp' to actually use it.
What emerges here, seems to be a generic helper to handle
partial closure of ''tuple-like'' data records. In any case,
this is highly technical meta-programming code and mandates
extraction into a separate header — simplifying `NodeBuilder`
Likely the most widely used facility, which enters into meta-programming
with type sequences, is our function-signature-detector `_Fun<X>`,
which returns a argument type-sequence.
After adding some bridges for cross-compatibility,
function-arguments are now extracted as a new-style,
''variadic sequence'' without trailing `NullType`.
Doing so required to augment some of the most widely used
sequence-processing helpers to work seamlessly also with the
new-style variadic sequences with a definition variant based
on variadics, which typically will later-on obsolete the original
solution, which at that time needed to be tediously coded as a
series of explicit specialisations for N arguments.
...on top of the parameter-decorating functionality developed thus far.
The idea is to allow in the `NodeBuilder` to supply ''some parameters''
directly, while the remaining parameters will be drawn from automation.
Several years ago, I developed some helpers for partial function closure.
Unfortunately these utils are somewhat limited, and rely on some pre-C++11
constructs, yet seem to be usable for the task at hand, since parameters
are always expected as value objects by definition.
This changeset shows a working proof-of concept for left-closing a
parameter tuple with 5 elements; this turns out to surprisingly difficult
due to the full genericity of the acceptable parameter-aggregates...
seemingly the definition can not be much simplified,
since there is no way around handling several definition flavours
of the processing-functor distinctly.
However, the definitions can be rearranged to be clearer,
the resulting type of the `FeedPrototype` can be deduced from the
builder function, and more stringent assertions can be added
...the idea is to limit the scope of possible changes
and rather directly accept a functor to transform the parameters.
We need then to account for the possible flexibility in processing-functor
arguments, while in fact only two cases must be actually handled.
''This proof-of-concept works in test setup''
It seemed that the integration test will end up as a dull repetition
of already coded stuff, just with more ports and thus more boilerplate;
and so I reconsidered what an actually relevant integration test might encompass
- getting parameters from the invocation
- translating and wiring parameters
- which entails to adapt / partially close a processing function!
Thus — surprise — there is a new feature not yet supported by the `NodeBuilder`,
which would be very likely to be used in many real-world use cases: which is
to adapt the parameter tuple expected by the binding from the library.
Obviously we want this, since many »raw« processing functions will expose a mix
of technical and artistic parameters; and we'd like to ''close'' the technical ones.
Such a feature ''should be implementable,'' based on the already developed
technique with the »cross builder«, which implies to switch the template arguments
from within a builder expression. We already do this very thing for adapting
parameter functor, and thus the main difficulty would be to compose an
adaptor functor to the correct argument of the processing functor...
Which is... (well, it is nasty and technical, yet feasible).
Just wanted to use a helper function to build a source-data node.
However, the resulting node had a corrupted Node-ID spec.
Investigation with the debugger showed that the ID was still valid
while in construction and shows up corrupted after returning from the
helper function.
As it turned out, the reason is related to the de-duplication of ProcID data.
While the de-duplicated strings themselves are ''not'' affected, the corruption
happened by an intermediate instance of ProcID, which was inadvertently created
and bound by-value to the builder-λ. The created Port then picks up a reference
to this temporary, leading to the use-after-free of the string_view obejcts.
Obviously, `ProcID` must not be instantiated other than through the static
front-end `ProcID::describe`. Due to the private constructor, I can not make this
object non-copyable (because then the hash-set would not be allowed to emplace it).
But making it at least move-only will provoke a compiler error whenever binding
to a lambda capture by value, which hopefully helps to pinpoint this
insidious problem in the future...
The scheme to provide preconfigured nodes with random `TestFrame` data
seems to be suitable and easy to extend to further cases; should however
always document the setup through a dedicated case in `NodeDevel_test`
Seems to be straight forward now, based on the implementation
of `TestFrame` manipulation provided by the »Test Rand Ontology«
__Remark__: the next goal is to reproduce the complex Node tree
with operations on TestFrame and then to invoke these and verify results.
...while this is not the main objective of this test case,
and another test will focus on invocation with full-fledged
`TestFrame` buffers and hash computation...
...it is still a nice achievement to see that these simple
algebraic operations used for demonstration can actually be
invoked in the whole connected network :-)
Using a Node network with
* two source nodes
* one of them chained up linearly with a filter node
* then on top a mix node to combine both chains
Can now verify the generated port specs and verify proper connections
at node level and at port level
This was a lot of intricate technical work,
and is now verified in-depth, covering all possible cases.
__We can now__
* build Nodes
* verify in detail correct connectivity
* read Node-IDs and processing specifications
* maintain a symbolic spec for the arguments of a Port
(and beyond that, we can also **invoke nodes**, which remains to be formally verified)
An essential goal still to reach is a verification of the `NodeBuilder`'s products
Relying on the low-level diagnostic facilities pioneered last days,
it should now be possible to define simple and readable connectivity-clauses,
allowing to build some connected nodes and then verify the connections explicitly.
Handling of extended attributes in conjunction with the hash
turns out to be a rather complicated topic, with some tricky fine details.
And, most important, at the moment I am lacking the proper perspective
to address it and find adequate solutions. Luckily, the cache-key is
not required at the moment, ''and so this topic will be postponed''
As a minimum to complete the diagnostics functions, it is sufficient to set
the appropriate flags in the `ProcID` directly -- and to add some convenience wrappers.
...especially the extended attributes remain somewhat nebulous,
since non of the prospective usages are close to being implemented right now.
It seems, we'll get two distinct sources at construction time of the Node
* additional qualifiers from the Library plug-in
* internal flags or qualifiers provided by the `NodeBuilder`
Another related concern seems to be generation of cache-keys,
which however will ''consume'' the proc-hash generated by the ProcID,
but not change the ID itself; cache-key generation is a tricky subject
and was somewhat overlooked regarding the connection to the `BufferProvider`.
Opened a new ticket #1292 as reminder for this issue.
...exploiting the ''backdoor access'' bypassing the VTable,
as made possible by a common congruent storage layout.
This is a first proof-of-concept, but also shows that the demo nodes
in NodeMeta_test are wired as expected. What is needed now is to make
this diagnostic access easier to invoke and more bullet-proof, by setting
the proper Attribute bits directly in the `NodeBuilder`
...to create an ''access path for diagnostics'' and further evaluations
while ''bypassing the VTable.''
It is a well-known downside of specifically typed, highly optimisable
template-based code to create a dangerous leverage for generating spurious,
mostly identical virtual function instances added for secondary concerns.
Thus it is a consequence of this design choice, either to forego some diagnostic
and analytical possibilities, or to exploit ''other means'' for retrieving
internal data, which is needed for tangential purposes only. The solution
pursued hereby exploits similar layout of various ''weaving pattern''
template instances to create an ''access backdoor'' for use cases
beyond the primary performance-critical path.
Some additional tests to challenge the parser, which seems to work well.
Without extended analysis into the usage of those node specifications,
it is pointless to expand further on its capabilities. For now, it is
sufficient to have a foundation for hash-computation in place.
__Note__: found a nifty way to give lib::Several an easy toString rendering,
without cranking up the header inclusion load.
This is a nice little goodie: allow to write repeated arguments with the
shorthand notation known from lisp and logic programming. For multi-channel media,
structurally similar wirings for each channel will be quite common....
...at the point where I identified the need to parse nested terms.
The goals are still the same
* write tests to ''verify connectivity'' of nodes generated by the new `NodeBuilder`
* allow for ''extended custom attributes'' in the ProcID
* provide the ability to mark specific parametrisations
* build a Hash-Key to identify a given processing step
__Note Library__: this is the first time `lib::Several` was used to hold a ''const object''.
Some small adjustments in type detection were necessary to make that work.
Access to stored data happens through the `lib::Several` front-end and thus always includes
the const modifier; so casting any const-ness out of the way in the low-level memory management
is not a concern...
This finishes an ''exercise'' in tool design,
which was set off by the requirement to parse the spec-ID of a render node.
While generally within the confines of a helper utility for simple use cases,
the solution became quite succinct and generic, as it allows to handle arbitrary
LL(n) grammars, possibly with recursion.
...which is the reason for this whole excursion into parser business;
we want to accept specification terms with elements from C++ type expressions,
which especially requires to accept complete comma separated lists within
angle brackets or parenthesis, while separating by comma at top level.
The idea is to model ''not as an expression'' but rather as an ''extended quote'',
and to use inverted regular expressions for non-quote-characters as terminal
...evaluating the recursive syntax of a numerical expression!
* so this light-weight parsing support framework indeed allows
to build fully capable LL(x) parsers, when the user knows how
handle syntax clauses and bind the result models
* furthermore, a notation is demonstrated how to arrange the
binding functions so to keep the syntax definition legible
* this involves a shortcut for homogeneous alternatives
The concept was indeed successful, albeit quite difficult to pull off in detail.
It requires a carefully crafted path of Deduction guides and overloads
to effect the switch from std::function to std::function& at the point
where a predeclared syntax clause placeholder is used recursively
In accordance to the plan drafted yesterday, I will try to integrate
this essential capability into the framework established thus far by a trick,
requiring only minimal adjustment, but some work by the user.
Since the parse function is defined as a (unqualified) template argument,
it is possible to emplace either a `std::function`, or a reference thereto.
For this to work, the user is required to pre-define the expected result type,
and, furthermore, must later on assign a fully specified clause, which
also has a model transformation binding attached to yield this predeclared
result type
...several improvements as result from the more elaborate test cases
- spelling out the model types taken as argument can be challenging and tedious,
thus improve the ability to pass a λ-generic.
- furthermore, using structured bindings on a SeqModel can also simplifiy
binding code; this did not work because the compiler picks the wrong strategy
and attempts to bind the structure fields; need to provide explicit speicalisations
to support the »tuple protocol« for SeqModel.
..considered several further helpers, (like auto-joining into a single string),
but in the end did not implement them, due to questionable relevance
The `bindMatch()` as implemented yesterday works only directly on top
of the terminal parsers, which yield a `RegExp`-Matcher. However,
it would be desirable to provide a generic shortcut to always get
some string as result model. A simple fallback is to return
the part of the input-string accepted thus far.
Basically the implementation is already in place;
yet for better error messages we need to find out if the given functor
can handle the model present at this stage. Since generic-λ are not
functions by themselves (but rather templates), we need to ''probe''
with the expected argument and see if instantiation is possible.
⚠ NOTE: still a strange bug related to using the same Syntax several times
Allowing free recursion in grammars is the key enabling feature,
which allows to accept arbitrary complex structures (like numeric expressions).
It is however also the element which makes the task of parsing a challenging endeavour;
after weighting the arguments, I decided ''not to place the focus on advanced usage,''
yet to open a pathway towards representation of such grammars.
Essentially, I consider it acceptable to require some additional work by the user,
if arbitrary recursive grammars are desired; because this design relies on explicitly
given parse functions, we need to introduce some kind of indirection interface,
to allow ''declaring'' a recursive rule first and later to ''supply the definition,''
which obviously then will involve other rules (or itself) recursively.
This leads to a very ''nifty approach'' towards recursion: we require the user
to provide an ''explicit model type'' beforehand, which implies that this is a
simple type, that can be spelled out (no λ) — and so the user is also
''forced to augment the actual rule with a model-binding,'' thereby reducing
the structured return types from the parse into something simple and uniform.
The user ''has to do the hard work,'' but can ''exploit additional knowledge''
related to the specific use case.
All this framework needs to do then is to supply a `std::function`, using the
explicit return type given; everything else will still work as implemented,
since a `std::function` can always stand-in for any arbitrary λ.
This is the very key feature that requires a real parser and can not be handled by regular expressions.
After all the groundwork, it is surprisingly easy provide now;
only coding up all those DSL-variants is tedious. Notably we also
support accepting an ''optional'' bracket, and we support arbitrary
expressions for the ''opening'' and ''closing construct.''
It seemed that using postfix-decorating operators would be a good fit
for the DSL. Exploring this idea further showed however, that such a scheme
is indeed a good fit from the implementation side, but leads to rather confusing
and hard to grasp DSL statements for many non-trivial syntax definition.
The reason is: such a postfix-decorator will by default work on ''everything defined''
up to that point; this is too much in many cases.
The other alternative would be a function-style definition, which has the benefit
to take the sub-clause directly as argument (so the scope is always explicit).
The downside is that argument arrangement is a bit more tricky for the repetition
combinator (there can be mis-matches, since we take the »SPEC« as free-template argument)
And, moreover, with function-style, having more top-level entrance points would
be helpful. Overall, no fundamental roadblock, just more technicalities in the setup
of the DSL functions.
With that re-arrangd structure, an optional combinator could be easily integrated,
and a solution was provided to pick up the parser function from a sub-expression
defined as Syntax object.
Meanwhile, some kind of style scheme has emerged for the DSL:
We're working much with postfix-decorating operators, which
augment or extend the ''whole syntax clauses defined thus far''
In accordance with this scheme, I decided also to treat repeated expression
as a postfix operator (other than initially planned). This means, the actual
body to be repeated is ''the syntax clause defined thus far'', and the
repeat()-operator only details the number of repetitions and an optional delimiter.
