Commit graph

13 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
61627b26a0 WIP: first attempt to use a TreeMutator based binding
but unfortunately this runs straight into a tough problem,
which I tried to avoid and circumvent all the time:
At some point, we're bound to reveal the concrete type
of the Mutator -- at least to such an extent that we're
able to determine the size of an allocator buffer.

Moreover, by the design chosen thus far, the active
TreeMutator instance (subclass) is assumed to live within
the top-level of a Stack, which means that we need to
place-construct it into that location. Thus, either
we know the type, or we need to move it into place.
2016-06-11 19:40:53 +02:00
37f4caf7be draft data structure for the integration test to work on
the idea is to demonstrate the typical situation
of some implementation class, which offers to create
a binding for diff messages. This alone is sufficient
to allow mapping onto our "External Tree Description"
2016-06-10 04:30:02 +02:00
41f5ddb029 use the same underlying diff sequence in both tests
this is done to help with understanding these quite technical matters:
in the integration test, we use a specific diff sequence and
apply it against an opaque data structure, which is bound using
the TreeMutator::Builder

On the other hand, the TreeMutatorBinding_test covers the
elementary building blocks available to construct such a TreeMutator;
here again we assume the precisely same sequence of diff verbs
in all test cases, but actually we're issuing here those interface
actions on the TreeMutator API, which *would* be issued to
consume this diff sequence. Of course, there need to be
slight variations, since not any kind of binding can
handle all operations, but in principle the result
on the target data structure should be semantically
equivalent in all cases
2016-06-10 03:19:33 +02:00
57b105bbc5 fix a re-entrance problem
initially, even the diff applicator was meant to be a
"throwaway" object. But then, on writing some tests,
it seemed natural to allow re-using a single applicator,
after having attached it to some target.

With that change, I failed to care for the garbage
left back in the "old" sequence after applying one diff;
since in the typical usage sequence, the first use builds
content from scratch, this problem starts to show up only
with the third usage, where the garbage left from the input
of the second usage appears at the begin of the "new sequence"

Solution is to throw away that garbage explicitly on re-entrance
2016-06-10 02:48:22 +02:00
15246ef323 investigate surprising behaviour 2016-06-10 02:42:08 +02:00
115f03b092 draft idea for the next (integration) test
the plan is to put together an integration test
of diff application to opaque data through the TreeMutator,
using the now roughly finished binding primitives.

moreover, the idea is to apply precisely the same diff sequence,
as was used in the detail test (TreeMutatorBinding_test).


NOTE: right now, the existing placehoder code applies this sequence
onto a Rec<GenNode>. This should work already -- and it does,
BUT the result of the third step is wrong. Really have to
investigate this accidental finding, because this highlights
a conceptual mismatch in the handling of mixed scopes.
2016-06-09 02:15:50 +02:00
06102b74ad rename test (no change) 2016-05-26 02:16:34 +02:00
dcad50ef1b test diff: codify and document the diff sequence
the plan is to use this specific diff sequence
both in the individual binding tests, and in a
more high level integration test. Hopefully this
helps to make these quite technical tests more readable
2016-05-26 01:56:13 +02:00
d3869d2280 Design/Analysis: Attribute TreeMutator binding
how can ordinary object fields be treated as "Attributes"
and thus tied into the Diff framework defined thus far.
This turns out to be really tricky, even questionable
2016-04-30 00:26:19 +02:00
a106a0e090 spelling fixes 2016-03-19 01:42:27 +01:00
bdf48e1b7b WIP: desperate attempt to get out of the design deadlock
Arrrrgh.
I go round in circles since hours now.
Whatever I attempt, it again relies on
yet further unsecured suppositions
2016-02-26 22:57:49 +01:00
dd1afef970 WIP: consider what kind of changes to support and how
especially the nagging question is:
- do we need to support children of mixed type
- and how can we support those, wihtout massively indirected calls
2016-02-20 00:19:01 +01:00
afbba968b5 WIP: decide how to target the task of mutating "unspecific" data structures 2016-02-19 20:25:30 +01:00