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
The population message is just made up, in order to create more interesting structures
in the UI and so to further the development of the timeline display.
For the actual structure I choose to mirror my example drawing in draw/UI-TimelineLayout-1.png
which is also used in the TiddlyWiki, on the #GuiTimelineView tiddler
https://lumiera.org/wiki/renderengine.html#GuiTimelineView
- always layer the TreeExplorer (builder) on top of the stack
- always intersperse an IterableDecorator in between adjacent layers
- consequently...
* each layer implementation is now a "state core"
* and the source is now always a Lumiera Iterator
This greatly simplifies all the type rebindings and avoids the
ambiguities in argument converison. Basically now we can always convert
down, and we just need to pick the result type of the bound functor.
Downside is we have now always an adaptation wrapper in between,
but we can assume the compiler is able to optimise such inline
accessors away without overhead.
...the sheer amount of mechanical replacements scattered all over these
files might be a vivid indication, that the design of the interface system
is subobptimal ;-)
Phew, convoluted.
And I was doubtful that we need to support multiple typed child collection
Well, we get three such collections already in the first real world example...
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()
actually this is a pragmatic extension for some special use cases,
and in general rather discurraged, since it contradicts the
established diff semantics. Yet with some precaution, it should
be possible to transport information via an intermediary ETD
Map -> ETD -> Map
for the record: while it is indeed sweet-and-simple to support Ref::THIS
here, it is near impossible to represent it in general, in a setup with
multiple "onion-layers". The reason is, we'd have to incorporate such
special treatment into the /selector predicate/, which in turn undermines
the ability to pick the right onion layer to handle a given diff verb,
since "Ref::THIS" is a generic marker and we have no other data to base
the decision in the selector on.
this adds kind of an extension point to diff::Record<GenNode>::Mutator,
which is then actually defined (implemented) within the diff framework.
This allows the TreeDiffTraits automatically to use this function
to get a TreeMutator for a given Rec::Mutator. Which in turn allows
the generic version of DiffApplicator automatically to attach and
bind to a Record<GenNode>
together this allows us to ditch the explicit specialisation
and dedicated, hand-written implementation of DiffApplication
to GenNode in favour of using the TreeMutator and friends.
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
needed to use a forward function declaration within the
lambda for recursive scope mutator building, since otherwise
everything is inline and thus the compilation fails when it
comes to deducing the auto return type of the builder.
Other than that, the whole mechanics seem to work out of the box!
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.
- esp. verify the proper inclusion of the Selector closure in all Operations
- straighten the implementation of Attribute binding
- clean-up the error checking helpers
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
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...
while simple to add into the implementation, this whole feature
seems rather qestionable to me now, thus I've added a Ticket
to be revisited later.
In a nutshell, right here, when implementing the binding layer
for STL collections, it is easy to enable the framework to treat
Ref::THIS properly, but the *actual implementation* will necessarily
be offloaded onto each and every concrete binding implementation.
Thus client code would have to add support for an rather obscure
shortcut within the Diff language. The only way to avoid this
would be to change the semantics of the "match"-lambda: if this
binding would rather be a back-translation of implementation data
into GenNode::ID values, then we'd be able to implement Ref::THIS
natively. But such an approach looks like a way inferiour deisgn
to me; having delegated the meaning of a "match" to the client
seems like an asset, since it is both natural and opens a lot
of flexibility, without adding complexity.
For that reason I tend to avoid that shortcut now, in the hope
to be able to drop it entirely from the language
...basically this worked right away and was easy to put together.
However, when considering how many components, indirections and
nested lambdas are working together here, I feel a bit dizzy...
:-/
write down a first draft for a definiton section,
to describe the fundamental parts involved, when
applying a diff message onto implementation defined
data structures
After a break of tree weeks, I found it difficult to find may way
amidst all those various levels of abstraction. In addition to this
definition, we'll probably also need a high level overview of the
whole diff system operation.
...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 collection binding can be configured with various
lambdas to supply the basic building blocks of the generated binding.
Since we allow picking up basically anything (functors,
function pointers, function objects, lamdas), and since
we speculate on inlining optimisation of lambdas, we can not
enforce a specific signature in the builder functions.
But at least we can static_assert on the effective signature
at the point where we're generating the actual binding configuration
we can't generate a static assertion so easily here.
Problem is, when forming this type, we don't know if
the user will override and provide a custom binding
in some chained call within the nested DSL.
Might still be able to come up with some clever trick,
like e.g. returing an unsuitable marker type from these
dummy default implementations and then, later on, when
actually building the collection binding, to detect
those marker types and rise a static assert at that point.
This would at least give us a better error message,
and in theory, it should always be possible to
detect this kind of misuse at compile time
...through the use of partial specialisation and SFINAE.
There are some rather specific (yet expectedly not uncommon) cases,
where we'd be able to provide a sensible default for the
- match predicate
- new element constructor
of the binding. While in all other cases, the user
has to provide an explicit implementation for these
crucial building blocks anyway.
...but does not compile, since all of the fallback functions
will be instantiated, even while in fact we're overriding them
right away with something that *can* be compiled.
this prompts me to reconsider and question the basic approach
with closures for binding, while in fact what I am doing here
is to implement an ABC.
