...and I made the decision *not* to consider any kind of
generic properties for now. YAGNI.
UI coding is notorious spaghetti code.
No point in fighting that, it is just the way it is,
because somewhere you're bound to get concrete, hands-on.
...everything working out of the box thus far,
which is remarkable, since I didn't write a single
line of implementation code beyond what's available
as basic bus functionality. So this one just
fell into place
right now, what we actually need here is just some integer,
so the GenNode payload is typed to int (or just to anything
different than a Record, because the Record signals that
we intend to bind, not to invoke the command)
the values.child() call would also do a bounds check,
but only to rise a error::Invalid "index out of bounds".
So now we generate a clear message to indicate that
actually a runtime-checked type mismatch caused this problem
still TODO: the ability to use immutable types
within the command framework. In theory, this
shouldn't be had to implement, since we're creating
a new opaque value holder within the command registry
anyway, so it should be sufficient to refrain from
re-assigning a new value tuple. This is relevant,
since e.g. our time framework is built on immutable
value types.
...when the Test-Nexus processes a command binding message.
In the real system of course we do not want to log every bind message.
The challenge here is the fact that command binding as such
is opaque, and the types of the data within the bind message
are opaque as well. Finally I settled on the compromise
to log them as strings, but only the DataCap part;
most value types applicable within GenNode
have a string representation to match.
based on the new generic tuple builder, we're now able to
add a new binding function into the command implementation
machinery, alongside the existing one. As it stands, the
latter will be used rather by unit tests, while the new
access path is what will be actually taken within
the application, when receiving argument binding
messages dispatched via the UI-Bus.
based on the previous experiments, this adds a fake operation
and a definition frame to hook this operation as pseudo Proc-Layer command
WIP: the invocation itself is not yet implemented.
We need to build a custom invocation pattern for that,
in order to be able to capture the instance-ID of the command
on invocation
NOTE: also, because of #989, we can not bind a time value for this test
basically this comes down to provide some convenience fixture
within the test::Nexus, which automatically generates and wires
mock commands.
Not sure if this is even possible to the extent envisioned here
since our test.sh runner can be used to verify the
expected output printed by tests, working with these
output transcripts of larger tests can be hard at times.
These separators help to find who produced which output
and they prevent a regexp match to grep beyond the feed
of a single function (which can be a common problem
when using the self-diagnostic output of the facility
currently in test, which obviously will be similar
on any data printed.
First part is to define the steps (the protocol) at the
model element level, which gets a command prepared and invoked.
Test fails still, because there is no actual argument binding
invoked in the TestNexus
- remove unnecessary includes
- expunge all remaining usages of boost::format
- able to leave out the expliti string(elm) in output
- drop various operator<<, since we're now picking up
custom string conversions automatically
- delete diagnostics headers, which are now largely superfluous
- use newer helper functions occasionally
I didn't blindly change any usage of <iostream> though;
sometimes, just using the output streams right away
seems adequate.
this test is intended as counterpart to
AbstractTangible_test::verify_mockManipulation()
It creates a mock element and verifies bidirectional
connnectivity to the UI-Bus
I worked under the erroneous assumption, that Doxygen
will use its internal entity-IDs as the link-IDs when
generating mardown-links. Yes, this seemed logical and
this would be the way I'd implement it....
But seemingly, Doxygen is not so consistent when it
comes to questions of syntax. The same holds true for
markdown, which lacking a coherent definition anyway.
Another problem is that Doxygen's auto-link generation
frequently fails, for reasons not yet clear to me.
Sometimes it seems to be necessary to give it a nudge
by including the \ref command. While I'm not willing
to go into focussed invstigation of Doxygen syntax
right now, at least I've done a search-and-replace
to remove the malformed links I've written the
last days
the initial draft of this concept is in place now, and
the first round of unit tests pass. I've got some understanding
of the purpose of the interactions and involved elements
and I'm confident this design is evolving in a sane way.
Note: extensive documentation is in the TiddlyWiki,
here I've just pasted and reworded some paragraphs from there
and integrated them into the Doxygen docs
the "log joining" functionality was already implemented
and covered with the generic event log facility, but this test
here was drafted even before that, meaning that the semantics
of matchingn on the log, especially on events, as been
implemented slightly different than planned
since, by definition, the Nexus is "the" up-link,
all we need is clever overriding of the relevant
handling functions, so the nexus will care for the routing,
while the CoreService cares for command and presentation
state handling
I think it is a shame to waste the nice name "nexus"
just for a test facility; rather I've named our central
routing hub in the UI-Bus gui::ctrl::Nexus
So it makes sense to name the fake for unit testing
the test-nexus (we're not at nexus 5 yet)
next step will be to rig the mock element and set up
and cover the basic / generic element behaviour
This changeset
- adapts the (planned) unit test to the semantic of
the EventLog, which is now fully implemented
- adjusts the function names on the public Tangible interface,
to be better in line with the naming convention of the
corrsponding operations on the UI-Bus:
* "mark" operations are towards the UI element
* "note" messages are from the UI element towards some
state manager, which can be reached via the bus
...providing the standard implementation of UI-Bus connectivity.
It seems reasonable to place all of the UI-Bus implementation into
a single translation unit
previously this operation was named 'attach', which an be confused
with attching an object to this location. Indeed, the session interface
even offers such an attach function. By renaming the focus moving
operation into QueryFocus::shift(Scope), this ambiguity is resolved
Actually I arried at the conclusion, that the *receiving* of
a diff representation is actually a typical double-dispatch situation.
This leads to the attempt to come up with a specialised visitor
as standard pattern to handle and apply a diff. Obviously,
we do not want the classical GoF-Visitor, but (yes, we had
that discussion allready) -- well in terms of runtime cost,
we have to deal with at least two indirections anyway;
so now I'm exploring the idea to implement one of these
indirections through a functor object, which at the same time
acts as "Tag" in the diff representation language (instead
of using an enum as tag)
initial considerations; there is a concurrency problem, since
all of session handling within Proc is deliberately not threadsafe.
Thus the decision is to make this the gui::model::SessionFacade's responsibility
