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"
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
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.
...which mostly just is either ignoring the
operations or indicating failure on attempt to
'reorder' attributes (which don't have any notion of 'ordering')
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
obvious mistake, we need a match on the GenNode ID,
so the key of the attribute binding must use the same symbol
...now the test fails at when hitting unimplemented stuff,
i.e. here the missing failure check
the idea is again to perform the same sequence of primitives,
this time with a binding to some local variables within the test function
here to enact the role of "object fields"
together with drafting the first segment of the test code,
I've settled down onto an implementation approach
