...these magical strings are already spreading dangerously throughout the code base
PS: also fixup for c6b8811af0 (broken whitespace in test definition)
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"
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 :-/
Greedy wildcard match .+ is unnecessary, since in case of a positive match,
the next given expression always follows immediately. We just want to skip
over some "syntactic noise"
This change makes the matching time linear in the size of the log.
But unfortunately, I still occasionally see an Segmentation Fault.
It seems to arise when compiling the regular expresions
e.g. the following RegExps cashed (right in the middle of the test)
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?mut.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?358.+?emu.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?mut.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?178.+?emu.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?mut.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?498.+?emu.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?mut.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?223.+?emu.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?mut.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?121.+?emu.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻
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.
On rare occasions, the test thread itself consumes faster than the producer threads feed new test data.
Make sure the test does not hangin such a situation
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
...still quite braindead, but allows at least to cover the standard case as well.
A better mock element access service would at least traverse a GenNode-Tree,
and thus emulate the behaviour of the real service; yet both seems way beyond
scope right now, and all I need is some basic coverage of the Interface
My understanding is that in the standard use case, we precisely know what to expect
and just go ahead and perform the conversion. Thus it is pointless to introduce
fine grained distinctions. When the access fails, this always indicates some broken
application logic, and just raises an error.
With this solution, somewhere deep down within the implementation
the knowledge about the actual result type would be encoded into
the embedded VTable within a lib::variant. At interface level,
ther will be a double dispatch based on that result type
and the desired result type, leading either to a successful
access or an error response.
Basically the mocking mechanism just switches the configuration
and then waits for the service to be accessed in order to cause acutual
instantiation of the mock service implementation. But sometimes we want
to prepare and rig the mock instance prior to the first invocation;
in such cases it can be handy just to trigger the lazy creating process
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>
decided to add a very specific preprocessing here, to make the DSL notation more natural.
My guess is that most people won't spot the presence of this tiny bit of magic,
and it would be way more surprising to have rules like
UICoord::currentWindow().panel("viewer").create()
fail in most cases, simply because there is a wildcard on the perspective
and the panel viewer does not (yet) exist. In such a case, we now turn the
perspective into a "existential quantified" wildcard, which is treated as if
the actually existing element was written explicitly into the pattern.
...actually just more test coverage,
the feature is already implemented.
What *could* be done though is to inject that UIC_ELIDED marker
on missing perspective specs in create clauses automatically...
This looks like YAGNI, and it would be non trivial to implement.
But since the feature looks important for slick UI behaviour,
I've made a new ticket and leave it for now
with the exception of some special situations,
which require additional features from the engine,
especially binding-on-context
Not sure though if I'll implement these or say YAGNI
