wrap up the helpers and wire the connection to the UI-Bus.
Then attempt a direct invocation, still within the GTK thread.
While this might seem as just some silly experiment, in fact it is
*** THE FUCKING FIRST TIME to transmit a visible action to a real widget ***
this links together and integrates various efforts achieved during the last years
Gtk::Notebook is a quite powerful container foundation to build complex dialog widgets with multible pages on tabs.
Hower, the construction, wiring an setup is notoriously tedious, due to the repetitiveness
and the sheer amount of child widgets spread over various pages.
This design draft is an attempt to mitigate the required boilerplate, without
overly much obscuring the structure. The basic idea is to package each page into
a locally defined child struct, which is actually heap allocated and managed automatically.
This way, each child page gets its own namespace, and wiring to other components
is made explicit by passing named ctor arguments -- while the overall structure
of building and wiring of widgets stays close to the habits of Gtkmm programming.
...which gives us already the base functionality required to run the first tests
- can be triggered from the Help menu
- non-modal dialog (Gtk::Dialog)
- attached as child / slave-Window to the current active workspace window
- window manager hint to keep it on top
- have a notebook control within the dialog
- attached (passively) to the UI-Bus
...just to decide not to follow-up too much on that topic right now.
As it turns out, GTK seems to be lacking in that respect. I have plotted
some ideas how we could work around that discrepancy in future...
And for this simple DemoGuiRoundtrip, we'll just use direct styling,
but we'll store a table of bookmarks for the error entries, allowing
us to add further features later on top
after an extended digression to fix our matcher for tests on the EventLog,
the new helper abstractions gui::model::Expander and gui::model::Revealer
are now covered and ready for use.
In this special case here, the controller uses both the Expander and Revealer
inherited from model::Tangible; yet both are wired to access the actual
display widget via the getter, and delegate to the Expander rsp. Revealer
located within the widget. Which in turn are wired when creating the widget
within the InfoboxPanel.
Bottom line -- we have a generic scheme now, and the actual implementation
is filled in as lambda, at the point where the component or widget is created
well... reduction in size of the debug build objects
turns out not to be so large as I hoped. But it is significant anyway,
about 3-4MB on the most affected test classes. Plus from now on we
do not repeat that code on other tests using the same features.
up to now, EventLog was header only, which seems to cause
a significant bloat in terms of generated code size, especially
in debug builds. One major source for this kind of "template bloat"
is the IterChainSearch, rsp. the filter and transformer iterators.
And since EventLog is not meant for performance critical application code,
but rather serves as helper for writing unit tests, an obvious remedy is
to move that problematic part of the code down into a dedicate translation
unit, instead of using inline functions. To prepare this refactoring,
some var arg (templated) API funcitons need to be segregated.
this initially (on 1.9.18) triggered this extended digression;
The initial naive implementation (without backtracking) did not allow
to express such a simple thing like "function XXX" not invoked (again) after "function XXX"
For the before / after chaining search functions,
we now do one single step in the respective direction before evaluating
the new (next) filter condition. However, we also need to *deactivate* the
previous condition, otherwise that single "step" might cause us to jump
or even exhaust the underlying filter, due to the old filter condition
still being applied.
due to the lack of real backtracking, the existing solution
relied on a quirk, and started the before / after chained search
conditions /at/ the current element, not after / before it.
Now we're able to remove this somewhat surprising behaviour, yet to do so
we also need to introduce basic "just search" variations of all search
operations, in order to define the initial condition for a chained search.
Without that, the first condition in a chain would never be able to
match on the header entry of the log
- need to use dedicated steps in the chain for every added condition now
- seems to break the logic on tests on non-match.
This doesn't come as a surprise, since backtracking can be expected
to reveal additional solutions.
NOTE: some tests broken, to be investigated
est-event-log-test.cpp:228: thread_1: verify_callLogging: (log.ensureNot("fun").after("fun").after("fun2"))
...which can be achieved by checking the backtracking loop
always right after the non-backtracking iteration, exploiting
the fact that the guard conditions of both are complimentary.
So the only case when we'd actually enter the backtracking
loop after regular iteration would precisely be when
we drop down due to exahausting an upper layer.
The result now reads
"sausage-bacon-tomato-and-spam-spam-bacon-spam-tomato-and-spam-bacon-tomato-and-bacon-tomato-and-tomato-and"
...which sounds correct, yay!
...since usually such evaluation layers are finally wrapped into
an IterableDecorator and then presented as TreeEplorer -- an exercise
we do not want to perform here, since it is pointless in the typicall
use case. The IterChainSearch is already meant to be ready-for-use.
Thus, instead of wrapping again, the pragmatic solution is simply
to overload the missing operator++ and make it call the augmented
iterNext() function. Related to this, we also need to ensure
proper operation in case no further expansion is mandated
...seems basically sane now.
Just we still need to wrap it one more time into IterableDecorator;
which means the overall scheme how to build and package the whole pipeline
is not correct yet.
Maybe it is not possible to get it packaged all into one single class?
on closer investigation it turned out that the logic of the
first design attempt was broken altogether. It did not properly
support backtracking (which was the reason to start this whole
exercise) and it caused dangling references within the lambda
closure once the produced iterator pipeline was moved out
into the target location.
Reasoning from first principles then indicated that the only sane
way to build such a search evaluation component is to use *two*
closely collaborating layers. The actual filter configuration
and evaluation logic can not reside and work from within the
expander. Rather, it must sit in a layer on top and work in
a conventional, imperative way (with a while loop).
Sometimes, functional programming is *not* the natural way
of doing things, and we should then stop attempting to force
matters against their nature.
this is an rather obvious extension to the TreeExplorer framework.
In some cases, client code wants to define its own very specific
processing layers, beyond of what can be done with filters and
transformers. Obviously, writing such a custom layer requires
intimate knowledge about the internals of TreeExplorer
the actual use case prompting this extension is IterChainSearch;
it turned out that the original design can not be implemented,
unless the resulting object is non-copyable (which violates
the basic traits of a TreeExplorer based pipeline).
...and TADAA ... there we get an insidious bug:
we capture *this by reference into the expansion functor,
and then we move *this away, out from the builder into the target....
Up to now, we had a very simplistic configuration option just
to search for a match, and we had the complete full-blown reconfiguration
builder option, which accepts a functor to work on and reconfigure the
embedded Filter chain.
It occurred to me that in many cases you'd rather want some intermediary
level of flexibility: you want to replace the filter predicate entirely
by some explicitly given functor, yet you don't need the full ability
to re-shape the Filter chain as a whole. In fact the intended use case
for IterChainSearch (which is the EventLog I am about to augment with
backtracking capabilities) will only ever need that intermediate level.
Thus wer're adding this intermediary level of configurability now.
The only twist is that doing so requires us to pass an "arbitrary function like thing"
(captured by universal reference) through a "layer of lambdas". Which means,
we have to capture an "arbitrary thingie" by value.
Fortunately, as I just found out today, C++14 allows something which comes
close to that requirement: the value capture of a lambda is allowe to have
an intialiser. Which means, we can std::forward into the value captured
by the intermediary lambda. I just hope I never need to know or understand
the actual type this captured "value" takes on.... :-)
with the augmented TreeExplorer, we're now able to get rid of the
spurious base layer, and we're able to discard the filter and
continue with the unfiltered sequence starting from current position.
build a special feature into the Explorer component of TreeExplorer,
causing it to "lock into" the current child sequence and discard
all previous sequences from the stack of child explorations
There is an asymetry, insofar the base layer configuration is
evaluated immediately, causing the MutableFilter to be reconfigured
and forwarded to the first match.
to the contrary, when configuring an additional layer, we just
add it to the chain, but then need to iterate once to cause
this configuration actually to be unfolded onto the stack
...which just turns the pipeline into exhausted state,
instead of raising an Assertion failure
The point is, expandChildren() does not guard itself,
since it _requires_ an non-empty iterator as precondition.
Thus, any function downstream, which invokes expandChildren(),
has to check and guard this call apropriately.
In the concrete case at hand we just stop adding further constraints
when the pipeline is already in exhausted state
...the solution built thus far was logically broken, since it retained the unfiltered
source sequence within the base layer. Thus it would backtrack into this unfiltered
sequence eventually.
The idea was to build a special treatment for attaching the first filter condition;
in fact the first one does not need to be added to the chain, but rather should be
planted directly into the base layer.
WIP: this is a solution draft, but does not work yet
- when attaching the base layer, the filter is pulled twice
- an overconstrained filter raises an Assertion failure
(instead of just transitioning into exhausted state)
So we have now a reworked version of the internals of TreeExplorer in place.
It should be easier to debug template instantation traces now, since most
of the redundancy on the type parameters could be remove. Moreover, existing
pipelines can now be re-assigned with similarily built pipelines in many cases,
since the concrete type of the functor is now erased.
The price tag for this refactoring is that we have now to perform a call
through a function pointer on each functor invocation (due to the type erasure).
And seemingly the bloat in the debugging information has been increased slightly
(this overhead is removed by stripping the binary)
Here the design trardeoff becomes clearly visiblie
- on the plus side, we removed that spurous redundant info
from the template parameter, and we simplified functor rebinding
- but as a tradeoff, we now always have two std::function objects
nested into each other, which also means that at least the outer
object resides on the heap and /inevitably/ calls through a
function pointer, even in case the target function is a lambda,
simply because some type erasure happened, and the call site
does not know the actual type anymore
...step by step switch over to the new usage pattern.
Transformer should be the blueprint for all other functor usages.
The reworked solutions behaves as expected;
we see two functor invocations; the outer functor, which does
the argument adaptation, is allocated in heap memory
This does not touch the existing code-path,
but the idea is to use the _FunTraits directly from within the
constructor of the respective processing layer, and to confine the
knowledge of the actual FUN functor type to within that limited context.
Only the generic signature of the resulting std::function need to be
encoded into the type of the processing component, which should help
to simplify the type signatures
...and in preparation start with some renamings...
The overall goal is to simplify the type signatures and thereby
to make the generates pipelines more assignment compatible.
The debugging experience form the last days indicated that the
current design is not maintainable on the long run. Both the
template instantiation chains and the call stacks are way to
complicated and hard to understand and diagnose
It is essential that we pass the current state of the filter
into the expand functor, where it needs to be copied (once!)
to create a child state, which can then be augmented.
This augmented state is then pushed onto a stack, to enable backtracking.
Due to the flexible adapters and the wrapping into the TreeExplorer builder,
we ended up performing several spurious copies on the current state
...based on a monadic tree expansion: we define a single step,
which takes the current filter configuration and builds the next
filter configuration, based on a stored chain of configuration functions
The actual exhausting depth-first results just by the greedy application pattern,
and uses the stack embedded in the "Explorer" layer of TreeExplorer
..this resolves the most challenging part of the construction work;
we use the static helper functions to infer a type and construct a suitable
processing pipeline and we invoke the same helper to initialise the base class
in the ctor.
Incidentally... we can now drop all the placeholder stubs,
since we now inherit the full iterator and child explorer API.
The test now starts actually to work... we get spam and sausage!
TODO: now actually fill in the expand functor such as to pick the
concrete filter step in the chain from a sequence of preconfigured
filter bindings
...now matters start to get really nasty,
since we have to pick up an infered type from a partially built pipeline
and use it to construct the signature for a functor to bind into the more elaborate complete pipeline
this is a tricky undertaking, since our treeExplore() helper constructs
a complex wrapped type, depending on the actual builder expressions used.
Solution is to use decltype on the result of a helper function,
and let the _DecoratorTraits from TreeExplorer do the necessary type adaptations
The intention is to augment the iterator based (linear) search
used in EventLog to allow for real backtracking, based on a evaluation tree.
This should be rather staight forward to implement, relying on the
exploreChildren() functionality of TreeExplorer. The trick is to package
the chained search step as a monadic flatMap operation
while this is basically a drop-in replacement,
it marks the switch to the monadic evaluation technology,
which is prerequisite for building real backtracking into the search.
we did an unnecessary copy of the argument, which was uncovered
by the test case manipulating the state core.
Whew.
Now we have a beautiful new overengineered solution
outift the Filter base class with the most generic form of the Functor
wrapper, and rather wrap each functor argument individually. This allows
then to combine various kinds of functors
...this solution works, but has a shortcoming:
the type of the passed lambdas is effectively pinned to conform
with the signature of the first lambda used initially when building the filter.
Well, this is the standard use case, but it kind of turns all the
tricky warpping and re-binding into a nonsense excercise; in this form
the filter can only be used in the monadic case (value -> bool).
Especially this rules out all the advanced usages, where the filter
collaborates with the internals of the source.
while this is basically just code code cosmetics,
at least it marks this as a very distinct special case,
and keeps the API for the standard Filter layer clean.
a quite convoluted construct built from several nested generic lambdas.
When investigated in the debugger, the observed addresses and the
invoked code looks sane and as expected.
The intention is to switch from the itertools-based filter
to the filter available in the TreeExplorer framework.
Thus "basically" we just need to copy the solution over,
since both are conceptually equivalent.
However...... :-(
The TreeExplorer framework is designed to be way more generic
and accepts basically everything as argument and tries to adapt apropriately.
This means we have to use a lot of intricate boilerplate code,
just to get the same effect that was possible in Itertools with
a simple and elegant in-place lambda assignment
Fillter needs to be re-evaluated, when an downstream entity requests
expandChildren() onto an upstream source. And obviously the ordering
of the chained calls was wrong here.
As it turns out, I had discovered that necessity to re-evaluate with
the Transformer layer. There is a dedicated test case for that, but
I cut short on verifying the filter in that situation as well, so
that piece of broken copy-n-paste code went through undetected.
This is in fact a rather esoteric corner case, because it is only
triggered when the expandChildren() call is passed through the filter.
When otoh the filter sits /after/ the entity generating the expandChildren()
calls, everything works as intended. And the latter is the typical standard
usage situation of an recursive evalutation algorithm: the filter is here
used as final part to drive the evaluation ahead and pick the solutions.
There is a bug or shortcoming in the existing ErrorLog matcher implementation.
It is not really difficult to fix, however doing so would require us to intersperse
yet another helper facility into the log matcher. And it occurred to me, that
this helper would effectively re-implement the stack based backtracking ability,
which is already present in TreeExplorer (and was created precisely to support
this kind of recursive evaluation strategies).
Thus I intend to switch the implementation of the EventLog matcher from the
old IterTool framework to the newer TreeExplorer framework. And this intention
made me re-read the code, fixing several comments and re-thinking the design
seemingly my quick-n-dirty implementation was to naiive.
We need real backtracking, if we want to support switches
in the search direction (match("y").after("x").before("z")
Up to now, I have cheated myself around this obvious problem :-/
as it turns out, we need to set the property_expand() on the child widget
within Gtk::Expander explicitly, to cause the child to grab and additional
available screen space (which obviously is what we want in case of a
log display with scrollbars)
basically Gtk::Expander will do the trick.
However, resizing of the enclosing panel is not handled properly,
the log does not expand to take up the available space, as it did
automaticall when just added directly into the frame
no need to define a private function on Wizard anymore, it just forwards the call
to the service actually implementing the view allocation. For now this is the
PanelLocator (and eventually this will be the ViewLocator / ViewSpecDSL)
PanelLocator is a sub component of the WindowLocator (top-level GUI service).
Eventually this shall become a mere widget/component access service, with the
actual lookup and allocation logic layered on top through ViewLocator, configurable
via ViewSpec-DSL.
We can not implement the full scheme right now, since we're lacking knowledge
about internals of a typical Lumiera UI widget
This is only a premature hack, since the whole structure of PanelManager is somewhat broken.
Moreover, the ViewLocator is not really ready for use yet, so this hack at least
allows us to "reach into" a top-level window and "grab" the pannel we need.
* have a dedicated "information hub" controller, which acts a receiver of "error log messages" on the UI-Bus
* let that controller in turn allocate an apropriate view on demand
The goal is to build a (in itself completely meaningless) ping-pong interaction
between the UI and Proc-Layer, for the purpose of driving the integration ahead.
The immediate challenge is how to create and place an apropriate "GuiComponentView",
i.e. a Tangible, which is connected to the UI-Bus with an predictable EntryID.
And the problem is to get that settled right now, without building the envisioned
generic framework for View allocation in the UI. When this is achieved,
it should be a rather small step to actually send those notifications over
the UI-Bus, which is basically implemented and ready by now.
right now this will just end up in the log, since not even the
notification display is implemented beyond the GuiNotification-facade.
Anyway, we get some kind of communication now for real, in the actual application
...because due of #211, we usually don't execute commands yet.
For now there is only the backdoor to prefix the command-ID with "test"
With this change, the TODO message appears now immediately after GUI start!
In the end, I decided against building a generic service here,
since it pretty much looks like a one-time problem.
Preferrably UI content will be pushed or pulled on demand,
rather than actively coding content from within the UI-Layer
- activation signal is a facility offered and used solely by Gtk::Application
- we do not need nor want an Gtk::Application, we deal with our own application
concerns as we see fit.
Gio::Application holds a signal_activation(), which seems to be used for
precisely that task we need here: to do something right after the UI is operative
...and while doing so, also re-check the state of the GTK toolkit initialisation.
Looks like we're still future-proof, while cunningly avoiding all this
Gnome-style "Application" blurb
I will abandon work on the ViewSpec DSL in current shape (everything fine with that)
and instead work on a general UI start-up and content population sequence.
From there, my intention is to return to the docks, the placement of views
and then finally to the TimelineView
This finishes the first round of design drafts in this area.
Right now it seems difficult to get any further, since most of
the actual view creation and management in the UI is not yet coded.
looks like I'm trapped with the choice between a convoluted API design
and an braindead and inefficient implementation. I am leaning towards the latter
looks like we're hitting a design mismatch here....
...and unfortunately I have to abandon this task now and concentrate
on preparation of my talk at LAC.2018 in June
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
The original goal for #1129 (ViewSpecDSL_test) is impossible to accomplish,
at least within our existing test framework. Thus I'll limit myself to coding
a clean-room integration test with purely synthetic DSL definitions and mock widgets
Problem is, we can not even compile the conversion in the "other branch".
Thus we need to find some way to pick the suitable branch at compile time.
Quite similar to the solution found for binding Rec<GenNode> onto a typed Tuple
Attempt to find my way back to the point
where the digression regarding dependency-injection started.
As it turns out, this was a valuable digression, since we can rid ourselves
from lots of ad-hoc functionality, which basically does in a shitty way
what DependencyFactory now provides as standard solution
FIRST STEP is to expose the Navigator as generic "LocationQuery" service
through lib::Depend<LocationQuery>
more of a layout improvement, to avoid any code duplication.
The mechanics remain the same
- write an explicit specialisation
- trigger template intantiation within a dedicated translation unit
from now on, we'll have dedicated individual translation units (*cpp)
for each distinct interface proxy. All of these will include the
interfaceproxy.hpp, which now holds the boilerplate part of the code
and *must not be included* in anything else than interfac proxy
translation units. The reason is, we now *definie* (with external linkage)
implementations of the facade::Link ctor and dtor for each distinct
type of interface proxy. This allows to decouple the proxy definition code
from the service implementation code (which is crucial for plug-ins
like the GUI)
The recently rewritten lib::Depend front-end for service dependencies,
together with the configuration as lib::DependInject::ServiceInstance
provides all the necessary features and is even threadsafe.
Beyond that, the expectation is that also the instantiation of the
interface proxies can be simplified. The proxies themselves however
need to be hand-written as before
I am fully aware this change has some far reaching ramifications.
Effectively I am hereby abandoning the goal of a highly modularised Lumiera,
where every major component is mapped over the Interface-System. This was
always a goal I accepted only reluctantly, and my now years of experience
confirm my reservation: it will cost us lots of efforts just for the
sake of being "sexy".
Actually this is on the implementation side only.
Since Layer-Separation-Interfaces route each call through a binding layer,
we get two Service-"Instances" to manage
- on the client side we have to route into the Lumiera Interface system
- on the implementation side the C-Language calls from the Interface system
need to get to the actual service implementation. The latter is now
managed and exposed via DependInject::ServiceInstance
...still using the FAKE implementation, not a real rules engine.
However, with the new Dependency-Injection framework we need to define
the actual class from the service-provider, not from some service-client.
This is more orthogonal, but we're forced to install a Lifecycle-Hook now,
in order to get this configuration into the system prior to any use
This is borderline yet acceptable;
A service might indeed depend on itself circularly
The concrete example is the Advice-System, which needs to push
the clean-up of AdviceProvicions into a static context. From there
the deleters need to call back into the AdviceSystem, since they have
no wey to find out, if this is an individual Advice being retracted,
or a mass-cleanup due to system shutdown.
Thus the DependencyFactory now invokes the actual deleter
prior to setting the instance-Ptr to NULL.
This sidesteps the whole issue with the ClassLock, which actually
must be already destroyed at that point, according to the C++ standard.
(since it was created on-demand, on first actual usage, *after* the
DependencyFactory was statically initialised). A workaround would be
to have the ctor of DependencyFactory actively pull and allocate the
Monitor for the ClassLock; however this seems a bit overingeneered
to deal with such a borderline issue
Static initialisation and shutdown can be intricate; but in fact they
work quite precise and deterministic, once you understand the rules
of the game.
In the actual case at hand the ClassLock was already destroyed, and
it must be destroyed at that point, according to the standard. Simply
because it is created on-demand, *after* the initialisation of the
static DependencyFactory, which uses this lock, and so its destructor
must be called befor the dtor of DependencyFactory -- which is precisely
what happens.
So there is no need to establish a special secure "base runtime system",
and this whole idea is ill-guided. I'll thus close ticket #1133 as wontfix
Conflicts:
src/lib/dependable-base.hpp
When some dependency or singleton violates Lumiera's policy regarding destructors and shutdown,
we are unable to detect this violation reliably and produce a Fatal Error message.
This is due to lib::Depend's de-initialisating being itself tied to template generated
static variables, which unfortunately have a visibility scope beyond the translation unit
responsible for construction and clean-up.
- state-of-the-art implementation of access with Double Checked Locking + Atomics
- improved design for configuration of dependencies. Now at the provider, not the consumer
- support for exposing services with a lifecycle through the lib::Depend<SRV> front-end
...which declare DependencyFactory as friend.
Yes, we want to encourrage that usage pattern.
Problem is, std::is_constructible<X> gives a misleading result in that case.
We need to do the instantiation check within the scope of DependencyFactory
