As it turned out, it is rather easy to extend the existing listener
for structural changes to detect also value assignments. Actually
it seems we'd need both flavours, so be it.
Our diff language requires a diff to handle the complete contents of the target.
Through this clean-up hook this is now in fact enforced.
The actual reason for adding this however was that I need to ensure
listeners are triggered
As it turned out, the reason was a missing move-ctor.
The base of the whole DSL-Stack, TreeMutator, is defined MoveOnly,
and this is also the intended use (build an anonymous instance
through the DSL and move it into the work buffer prior to diff application)
However, C++ does *cease to define* a move ctor implicitly,
whenever /one of the "big five" is defined explicitly/.
So Detector4StructuralChanges was the culprit, it defined a dtor,
but failed to define the move ctor explicitly.
So.... well, this did cost me several hours to track down,
yet I still rather do not want to write all those ctors explicitly all the time,
and so I am still in favour of implicitly generated ctors, even if they hurt sometimes.
with the new decorator layer, we suddenly trigger a chain of template instantiation errors.
At first sight, they are almost undecipherable, yet after some experimentation, it becomes clear
that they relate down to the base class (TreeMutator), which is defined MoveOnly
This seems to indicate that, at some point in the call chain, we are
digressing from the move-construction scheme and switch over to copy construction,
which in the end failst (and shall fail).
Inconclusive, to be investigated further
All of the existing "simple" tests for the »Diff Framework« are way to much low-level;
they might indeed be elementary, but not introductory and simple to grasp.
We need a very simplistic example to show off the idea of mutation by diff,
and this simple example can then be used to build further usage test cases.
My actual goal for #1206 to have such a very basic usage demonstration and then
to attach a listener to this setup, and verify it is actually triggered.
PS: the name "GenNodeBasic_test" is somewhat pathetic, this test covers a lot
of ground and is anything but "basic". GenNode in fact became a widely used
fundamental data structure within Lumiera, and -- admittedly -- the existing
implementation might be somewhat simplistic, while the whole concept as such
is demanding, and we should accept that as the state of affairs
This change demonstrates how to deal properly with possible duplicate entities
with similar symbolic ID: define a RandomID (to guarantee a distinct hash on each instance).
In the actual implementation, this should happen already within the domain model,
not when constructing the diff (obviously of course...)
This change also adds a mutation sequence to inject the actual track name
so this seems to be the better approach for dealing with this insidious problem.
In some cases -- as here most prominently with the root track within the timeline --
we have to care within the domain model to prepare unique ids even for sub objects
treated as attributes. In the actual case, without that special attention,
all timelines would hold onto an attribute "fork" with the same ID, based
on the type of the nested object plus the string "fork". Thus all root track
representations in the GUI would end up listening to the same ID on the UI-Bus...
Damn sideeffect of the suppport for move-only types: since we're
moving our binding now into place /after/ construction, in some cases
the end() iterator (embedded in RangeIter) becomes invalid. Indeed this
was always broken, but didn't hurt, as long as we only used vectors.
Solution: use a dedicated init() hook, which needs to be invoked
*after* the TreeMutator has been constructed and moved into the final
location in the stack buffer.
unintentionally we used copy construction in the builder expression,
wenn passing in the CollectionBinding to the ChildCollectionMutator.
The problem is that CollectionBinding owns a shaddow buffer, where
the contents of the target collection are moved temporarily while
applying the diff. The standard implementation of copy construction
would cause a copy of that shaddow buffer, which boils down to
a copy of the storage of the target collection.
If we want to support move-only types in the collection, most notably
std::unique_ptr, we can thus only use the move constructor. Beyond that
there is no problem, since we're only ever moving elements, and new
elements will be move constructed via emplace() or emplace_back()
this is a subtle change in the semantics of the diff language,
actually IMHO a change towards the better. It was prompted by the
desire to integrate diff application onto GenNode-trees into the
implementation framework based on TreeMutator, and do away with
the dedicated implementation.
Now it is a matter of the *selector* to decide if a given layer
is responsible for "attributes". If so, then *all* elements within
this layer count as "attribute" and an after(Ref::ATTRIBS) verb
will fast forward behind *the end of this layer*
Note that the meta token Ref::ATTRIBS is a named GenNode,
and thus trivially responds to isNamed() == true
previously they where included in the middle of tree-mutator.hpp
This was straight forward, since the builder relies on the classes
defined in the detail headers.
However, the GenNode-binding needs to use a specifically configured
collection binding, and this in turn requires writing a recursive
lambda to deal with nested scopes. This gets us into trouble with
circular definition dependencies.
As a workaround we now only *declare* the DSL builder functions
in the tree-mutator-builder object, and additionally use auto on
all return types. This allows us to spell out the complete builder
definition, without mentioning any of the implementation classes.
Obviously, the detail headers have then to be included *after*
the builder definition, at bottom of tree-mutator.hpp
This also allows us to turn these implementation headers into
completely normal headers, with namespaces and transitive #includes
In the end, the whole setup looks much more "innocent" now.
But beware: the #include of the implementation headers at bottom
of tree-mutator.hpp needs to be given in reverse dependency order,
due to the circular inclusion (back to tree-mutator.hpp) in
conjunction with the inclusion guards!
...instead of using a hand written implementation,
the idea is to rely on the now implemented building blocks,
with just some custom closures to make it work.
In Theory, acceptSrc and skipSrc are to operate symmetrically,
with the sole difference that skipSrc does not move anything
into the new content.
BUT, since skipSrc is also used to implement the `skip` verb,
which serves to discard garbage left back by a preceeding `find`,
we cannot touch the data found in the src position without risk
of SEGFAULT. For this reason, there is a dedicated matchSrc operation,
which shall be used to generate the verification step to properly
implement the `del` verb.
I've spent quite some time to verify the logic of predicate evaluation.
It seems to be OK: whenever the SELECTOR applies, then we'll perform
the local match, and then also we'll perform the skipSrc. Otherwise,
we'll delegate both operations likewise to the next lower layer,
without touching anything here.
overall, the structure of this implementation is still rather confusing,
yet any alternatives seem even less convincing
- if we want to avoid the delegation to base-class, we'd have
to duplicate several functions and the combined class would
handle two distinct concerns.
- any attempt to handle the IDs more "symmetrically" seems to
create additional problems on one side or the other
this also supersedes and removes the initial implementation
draft for attribute binding with the 'setAttribute' API
The elementary part of diff application incl. setting
new attribute values works by now.
The way we build this attribute binding, there is no single
entity to handle all attribute bindings. Thus the only way
to detect a missing binding is when none of the binding layers
was able to handle a given INS verb
to summarise, it turned out that it is impossible to
provide an airtight 'emptySrc' implementation when binding
to object fields -- so we distinguish into positive and
negative tests, allowing to loosen the sanity check
only for the latter ones when binding to object fields.
..as concluded from the preceding analysis.
NOTE this entails a semantical change, since this
predicate is now only meant to be indicative, not conclusive
remarks: the actual implementation of the diff application process
as bound via the TreeMutator remains yet to be written...
...all of this implementation boils down to slightly adjusting
the code written for the test-mutation-target. Insofar it pays off now
having implemented this diagnostic and demonstration first.
Moreover I'm implementing this basic scheme of "diff application"
roughly the fourth time, thus things kindof fall into place now.
What's really hard is all those layers of abstraction in between.
Lesson learned (after being off for three weeks, due to LAC and
other obligations): I really need to document the meaning of the
closures, and I need to document the "abstract operational semantics"
of diff application, otherwise no one will be able to provide
the correct closures.
since we're moving elements around to apply the diff,
dangerous situation might arise in case anyone takes a copy
of the mutator. Thus we effectively limit the possible
usage pattern and only allow to build an anonymous
TreeMutator subclass through the Builder-DSL.
The concrete "onion layers" of the TreeMutator are now limited
- to be created by the chaining operations of the Builder DSl
- to be moved into target location, retaining ownership.
I still feel somewhat queasy with this whole situation!
We need to return the product of the DSL/Builder by value,
but we also want to swap away the current contents before
starting the mutation, and we do not want a stateful lifecycle
for the mutator implementation. Which means, we need to swap
right at construction, and then we copy -- TADAAA!
Thus I'm going for the solution to disallow copying of the
mutator, yet to allow moving, and to change the builder
to move its product into place. Probably should even push
this policy up into the base class (TreeMutator) to set
everyone straight.
Looks like this didn't show up with the test dummy implementation
just because in this case the src buffer also lived within th
TestMutationTarget, which is assumed to sit where it is, so
effectively we moved around only pointers.
the whole implementation will very much be based on
my experiences with the TestMutationTarget and TestWireTap.
Insofar it was a good idea to implement this test dummy first,
as a prototype. Basically what emerges here is a standard pattern
how to implement a tree mutator:
- the TreeMutator will be a one-way-off "throwaway" object.
- its lifecylce starts with sucking away the previous contents
- consuming the diff moves contents back in place
- thus the mutator always attaches onto a target by reference
and needs the ability to manipulate the target
- the test will use some really private data types,
valid only within the scope of the test function.
- invoking the builder for real got me into problems
with the aggregate initialisation I'd used.
Maybe it's the function pointers? Anyway, working
around that by definint a telescope ctor
the concern is for the structure of the builder to be
incomprehensible and completely buried within the
implementation details of the various binding layers
the first part of the unit test (now passing)
is able to demonstrate the full set of diff operations
just by binding to a TestMutationTarget.
Now, after verifying the design of those primmitive operations,
we can now proceed with bindings to "real" data structures
