Writing and debugging such tests is always an interesting challenge...
Fortunately this exercise didn't unveil any problem in the newly written
code, only some insidious problems in the test fixture itself. Which
again highlights the necessity, that each *command instance* needs
to be an independent clone from the original *command prototype*,
since argument binding messages and trigger messages can appear
in arbitrary order.
the intention is to cover more of the full invocation path,
without running all of the application infrastructure. So this
second test cases simulates how messages are handled in CoreService,
where the CommandHandler (visitor) actually invokes the SessionCommand
facade
command processing against the session is not yet implemented,
so to allow for unit testing, we magically recognise all commands
starting with "test." and invoke them directly within the Dispatcher.
With this addition, the basic functionality of the dispatcher works now
need also to start and stop the interface registry,
since by policy we do not run the application framework itself
for execution of the test suite; thus if some test actually needs
an application service, it must be started/stopped manually
...since the session loop will be notified on any change via the
interface, adding a command will activate the loop, and the builder
timeout is handled separately via the dirty state. So there is no
need to spin around the loop in idle state.
As a aside, timeout waiting on a condition variable can be intentional
and should thus not be logged as an error automatically. It is up to the
calling context to decide if a timeout constitutes an exceptional situation.
It is always a trade-off performance vs. readability.
Sometimes a single-threaded implementation of self-contained logic
is preferable to a slightly more performant yet obscure implementation
based on our threadpool and scheduler.
...this means to turn Looper into a state machine.
Yet it seems more feasible, since the DispatcherLoop has a nice
checkpoint after each iteration through the while loop, and we'd
keep that whole builder-dirty business completely confined within
the Looper (with a little help of the DispatcherLoop)
Let's see if the state transition logic can actually be implemented
based just on such a checkpoint....?
While in general it is fine to clean-up any entity IDs
to be US-ASCII alphanumerics (plus some allowed interpunction),
the GenNodes and also keys in object-bindings for diff are
considerd internal interfaces, assuming that any passed
ID symbol is already sanitised and checked. So the
sanitise operation can be skipped. This changeset
adds the same option directly to lib::EntryID,
allowing to create an EntryID that matches
a similar GenNode's (hash) ID.
the functionality as such is already covered,
but it seems important enough to warrant a dedicated test.
incidentally, Duration still lacked a default ctor.
Time values are default constructible, yet immutable.
Completely removed the nested hierarchy, where
the top-level implementation forwarded to yet another
sub-implementation of the same interface. Rather, this
sub-implementation (OpClosure) is now a mere implementation
detail class without VTable, and without half-baked
re-implementation of the CmdClosure interface. And the
state-switch from unbound to bound arguments is now
implemented as a plain-flat boolean flag, instead of
hiding it in the VTable.
To make this possible, without having to rewrite lots of
tests, I've created a clone of StorageHolder as a
"proof-of-concept" dummy implementation, for the sole
purpose of writing test fixtures. This one behaves
similar to the real-world thing, but cares only
for closing the command operation and omits all
the gory details of memento capturing and undo.
Seems this was part of the confusion when looking at
the inheritance graph: Names where almost reversed
to the meaning. the ArgumentHolder was *not* the
argument holder, but the top level closure. And
the class "Closure" was not "the" Closure, but
just the argument holder. ;-)
this was a classical example of a muddled and messed-up design,
driven just by the fact that I wanted to "spare" some functions,
with the net effect of writing more functions, plus a proxy class
plus create a lot of confusion for the reader.
This was easy to resolve though, once I resorted to the
general adivice to make public interface methods final,
make the extension ponts protected and never
to chain two extension points
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
we deleted an object on the heap,
and afterwards re-accessed the memory through the
dangling pointer to verify the deletion actually happened.
This works most of the time, unless the memory manager decides
to map that page differently -- in which case we just hit
random memory contents.
A better idea is thus to place this TestFrame object
into a statically allocated buffer and invoke the dtor
explicitly. This allows us to conduct the test reliably.
