Using basically the same topology as in the preceding test, which focused on connectivity. However, in this case we retrieve actual processing functions from the »Test-Rand« ontology in order to perform hash-chaining computations on full data blocks. And, in addition, a »Param Agent Node« is used.
Seems to be straight forward now, based on the implementation
of `TestFrame` manipulation provided by the »Test Rand Ontology«
__Remark__: the next goal is to reproduce the complex Node tree
with operations on TestFrame and then to invoke these and verify results.
The namespace `steam::engine::test::ont` will hold some typical definitions
for the fake „media processing library“ — to be used for validating aspects of mapping and binding.
This picks up the efforts towards a »Test Ontology« from end November:
d80966c1f
The `TestRandOntology` is intended as a playground to gradually find out
how to maintain bindings processing functionality provided by a specific Library
and thus related to a ''Domain Ontology''
Remark: generating symbolic specs might seem like a mere test exercise, yet is in fact
quite crucial, since the node-identity is based on such a spec, which must be ''semantically correct,''
otherwise caching and especially cache invalidation will be broken.
Yesss .... in Lumiera naming and cache invalidation are linked directly ;-)
This is an attempt to take aim at the next step,
which is to fill in the missing part for an actual node invocation...
''...still fighting to get ahead, due to complexity of involced concerns...''
After the actual processing functions are defined,
the "next level" of test framework building is to find a way
how these bare bone operations can be used easily from a test
with the goal to ''build and invoke a Render-Node''
* we need some descriptor
* the bare bone operation must be packaged into an ''Invocation-Adapter''
* we need some means to configure variants of the setup
The overall goal is eventually to arrive at something akin to a ''»Dummy Media-processing Library«''
* this will offer some „Functionality“
* it will work on different ''kinds'' or ''flavours'' of data
* it should provide operations that can be packaged into ''Nodes''
However — at the moment I have no clue how to get there...
And thus I'll start out with some rather obvious basic data manipulation functions,
and then try to give them meaningful names and descriptors. This in turn
will allow to build some multi-step processing netwaorks — which actually
is the near-term goal for the ''main effort'' (which is after all, to get
the Render Node code into some sufficient state of completion)...
Bugfix: should use the full bit-range for randomised data in `TestFrame`
Bugfix: prevent division by zero for approximate floatingpoint equality
...and use the new zip()-itertor to simplify the loops
* based on reproducible data in `TestFrame`
* using Murmur64A hash-chaining to »mark« with a parameter
This emulates the simplest case of 1:1 processing and can also be applied ''in-place''
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
This is the first step towards a »Test Domain Ongology« #1372,
which is a systematic arrangement of test-dummy functionality assumed
to mirror the actual media processing functionality present in external libs.
Each media-processing library not only provides functions to crunch data,
but also establishes a framework of entities and classification to determine
what »media« is an how it is structured and can be generated, transformed
and qualified. Since a essential goal for Lumiera is to be **library agnostic,**
it is important to avoid naïvely to take some popular library's choices
as universal truth regarding structure and nature of »media« as such.
Rather, the architecture of the Lumiera Render Engine must be kept
sufficiently open to accommodate the working style of various libraries,
even ones not known today.
To validate this architectural openness, we use a set of test functions
unrelated to any existing library to validate access to and usage of
rendering functionality — followed by further steps to adopt existing
popular libraries like **FFmpeg** or **Gstreamer**, without tilting
the basic structure of the Render Engine one way or the other.
...taking into account the prospecive usage context
where the builder expressions will be invoked from within
a media-library plug-in, using std::string_view to pass
the symbolic information seems like a good fit, because
the given spec will typically be assembled from some
building blocks, and thus in itself not be literal data.
Building a precise Frame Cache is a tough job, and is doomed to fail
when attempting to tie cache invalidation to state changes. The only
viable path is to create a system of systematic tagging of processing
steps, and use this as foundation for chained hash values, linked
in accordance to the actual processing structure.
This is complicated by the secondary concern of maintaining memory efficacy
for the render node model, which can be expected to grow to massive scale.
And even while this invocation can not be fully devised right now,
an attempt can be made to build a foundation that is not outright
wasteful, by detaching the logical information from the specific
weaving pattern used for implementation, and by minimising the
representation in memory and computing the compound information
on-demand....
The immediate next goal is to verify properties of render nodes
generated by the builder framework; two kinds of validations
can be distinguished
* structural aspects of the wiring
* the fact that processing functionality is invoked in proper order
Looking into the structural aspects brings about the necessity
to identify the actual processing function bound into some functor.
Some recapitulation of goals and requirements revealed, that this
can not be a merely technical identity record — because the intention
is to base the ''cache key'' on chained processing node identities,
so that the key is stable as long as the user-visible results will be
equivalent. And while structural data can be aggregated, at the
core this information must be provided by the scheme embedded
into the domain ontology, which is tasked with invoking the
builder in order to implement a ''specific processing-asset''
Since it would in fact be possible to access and write beyond the configured storage,
simply by using the builder API without considering consistency,
it seems advisable to use explicit runtime checks here, instead of
only assertions, and to throw an exception when violating bounds.
Moreover, unsuccessfully attempted to better arrange the functionality
between PortBuilder and WeavingBuilder; seemingly we have an rather tight
coupling here, and also the expectations regarding the processing function
seem to be too tight (but that's the reason why it's an prototype...)
__Analysis__: what kind of verifications are sensible to employ
to cover building, wiring and invocation of render nodes?
Notably, a test should cover requirements and observable functionality,
while ''avoiding direct hard coupling to implementation internals...''
__Draft__: the most simple node builder invocation conceivable...
...and this line of analysis brings us deep into the ''Buffer Provider''
concept developed in 2012 — which appears to be very well to the point
and stands the test of time.
Adding some ''variadic arguments'' at the right place surprisingly leads
to an ''extension point'' — which in turn directly taps into the
still quite uncharted territory interfacing to a **Domain Ontology**;
the latter is assumed to define how to deal with entities and relationships
defined by some media handling library like e.g. FFmpeg.
So what we're set to do here is actually ''ontology mapping....''
