...this is the first attempt to integrate the Diff-Framework into (mock) UI code.
Right now there is a conceptual problem with the representation of attributes;
I tend to reject idea of binding to an "attribute map"
the generic typing to DiffMutatble does not make much sense,
since the desired implementation within gui::ctrl::Nexus
is bound to work on Tangibles only, since that is what
the UI-Bus stores in the routing table
Up to now, InPlaceBuffer used to default construct an instance of the
Interface class, and then you'd need to invoke the `create()` function
to actually create the desired subclass. This is not only inefficient,
but rules out the use of abstract interfaces / base classes.
Unfortunately, there is no way in C++ to specify an explicit template argument list
on ctor calls, so we resort to the trick of passing an additional dummy marker argument
yay! this piece of code has served its purpose:
it was the blueprint to build a way better design and implementation,
which can now cover this "generic tree" case as a special case as well
at first, this seemed like a good idea, but it caused already
numerous quirks and headache all over the place. And now, with
the intent to switch to the TreeMutator based implementation,
it would be damn hard to retain these features, if at all
possible.
Thus let's ditch those in time and forget about it!
this adds kind of an extension point to diff::Record<GenNode>::Mutator,
which is then actually defined (implemented) within the diff framework.
This allows the TreeDiffTraits automatically to use this function
to get a TreeMutator for a given Rec::Mutator. Which in turn allows
the generic version of DiffApplicator automatically to attach and
bind to a Record<GenNode>
together this allows us to ditch the explicit specialisation
and dedicated, hand-written implementation of DiffApplication
to GenNode in favour of using the TreeMutator and friends.
this is a subtle change in the semantics of the diff language,
actually IMHO a change towards the better. It was prompted by the
desire to integrate diff application onto GenNode-trees into the
implementation framework based on TreeMutator, and do away with
the dedicated implementation.
Now it is a matter of the *selector* to decide if a given layer
is responsible for "attributes". If so, then *all* elements within
this layer count as "attribute" and an after(Ref::ATTRIBS) verb
will fast forward behind *the end of this layer*
Note that the meta token Ref::ATTRIBS is a named GenNode,
and thus trivially responds to isNamed() == true
needed to use a forward function declaration within the
lambda for recursive scope mutator building, since otherwise
everything is inline and thus the compilation fails when it
comes to deducing the auto return type of the builder.
Other than that, the whole mechanics seem to work out of the box!
previously they where included in the middle of tree-mutator.hpp
This was straight forward, since the builder relies on the classes
defined in the detail headers.
However, the GenNode-binding needs to use a specifically configured
collection binding, and this in turn requires writing a recursive
lambda to deal with nested scopes. This gets us into trouble with
circular definition dependencies.
As a workaround we now only *declare* the DSL builder functions
in the tree-mutator-builder object, and additionally use auto on
all return types. This allows us to spell out the complete builder
definition, without mentioning any of the implementation classes.
Obviously, the detail headers have then to be included *after*
the builder definition, at bottom of tree-mutator.hpp
This also allows us to turn these implementation headers into
completely normal headers, with namespaces and transitive #includes
In the end, the whole setup looks much more "innocent" now.
But beware: the #include of the implementation headers at bottom
of tree-mutator.hpp needs to be given in reverse dependency order,
due to the circular inclusion (back to tree-mutator.hpp) in
conjunction with the inclusion guards!
...instead of using a hand written implementation,
the idea is to rely on the now implemented building blocks,
with just some custom closures to make it work.
- esp. verify the proper inclusion of the Selector closure in all Operations
- straighten the implementation of Attribute binding
- clean-up the error checking helpers
similar reordering for the third part.
This time most operations are either passed down anyway,
or are NOP, since attribute binding has no notion of 'order'
as said, I try to use the same underlying sequence of diff verbs both
for the high-level and the low-level test. Thus, since the high-level test
requires an adjustment to the test definition, we'll have to re-order
all of the low-level tests likewise. This is part-1 of this re-ordering
...during implementation of the binding, I decided to be more strict
with the interpretation of "reshaping" of attributes: since my onion-layer
for attribute binding works without the notion of any 'position' or 'ordering',
I made up my mind that it's best outright to reject any diff verbs attempting
to re-order or delete attributes. The rationale is that otherwise the same diff
might lead to substantially different results when applied to a Rec<GenNode>
as when applied to a target data structure bound via TreeMutator.
Consequently, the previously established test diff sequence would raise an error::Logic
in the second segment, since it attempts to re-order attributes. Instead of this,
I've now introduced a after(Ref::ATTRIBS) verb and I'm re-ordering children
rather than attributes.
Unfortunately this also prompts me to re-adjust all of the TreeMutatorBinding_tests,
since these detail tests are intended to play the same sequence on low level.
This is not a fundamental problem, though, just laborious. CHECK (target.showContent() == "α = 1, γ = 3.45, γ = 3.45, β = 2, Rec(), 78:56:34.012, b");
yay! unit testing rocks.
Actually I changed the test definition for another reason, just to discover
that I've missed to implement that operation in this onion layer
now failing due to a contradiction in test fixture:
it is nonsensical to re-order attributes; rather, we should
cover re-ordering of children, to verify that the mutator binding
properly surpasses the attribute layers and forwards operations
to the lower layers responsible for handling child scopes...
In Theory, acceptSrc and skipSrc are to operate symmetrically,
with the sole difference that skipSrc does not move anything
into the new content.
BUT, since skipSrc is also used to implement the `skip` verb,
which serves to discard garbage left back by a preceeding `find`,
we cannot touch the data found in the src position without risk
of SEGFAULT. For this reason, there is a dedicated matchSrc operation,
which shall be used to generate the verification step to properly
implement the `del` verb.
I've spent quite some time to verify the logic of predicate evaluation.
It seems to be OK: whenever the SELECTOR applies, then we'll perform
the local match, and then also we'll perform the skipSrc. Otherwise,
we'll delegate both operations likewise to the next lower layer,
without touching anything here.
--> now it becomes obvious that we've mostly
missed to integrate the Selector predicate properly
in most bindings defined thus far. Which now causes
the sub-object binding to kick in, while actually
the sub-value collection should have handled
the nested values CHILD_B and CHILD_T
OMG, this is intricate stuff....
Questionable if anyone (other than myself) will be able
to get those bindings right???
Probably we'll need yet another abstraction layer to handle
the most common binding situations automatically, so that people
can use the diff framework without intricate knowledge of
TreeMutator construction.
