LUMIERA.clone/tests/library/advice/advice-basics-test.cpp
Ichthyostega 806db414dd Copyright: clarify and simplify the file headers
* 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.
2024-11-17 23:42:55 +01:00

259 lines
7.5 KiB
C++
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

/*
AdviceBasics(Test) - basic behaviour of the Advice collaboration
Copyright (C)
2010, Hermann Vosseler <Ichthyostega@web.de>
  **Lumiera** is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
  under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
  Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
  option) any later version. See the file COPYING for further details.
* *****************************************************************/
/** @file advice-basics-test.cpp
** unit test \ref AdviceBasics_test
*/
#include "lib/test/run.hpp"
#include "common/advice.hpp"
namespace lumiera {
namespace advice {
namespace test {
namespace { // Some test classes using the advice system...
class TheAdvised
: private advice::Request<int>
{
public:
TheAdvised (Literal topic =0)
{
rebind (topic);
}
void
rebind (Literal topic)
{
defineBinding (topic);
}
bool
got(int val)
{
return val == getAdvice();
}
};
class TheAdvisor
{
advice::Provision<int> link_;
public:
TheAdvisor (Literal topic =0)
{
rebind (topic);
}
void
rebind (Literal topic)
{
link_.defineBinding (topic);
}
void
publish (int val)
{
link_.setAdvice (val);
}
void
clear()
{
link_.retractAdvice();
}
};
}
/***************************************************************************//**
* @test proof-of-concept for the Advice collaboration.
* Advice allows data exchange without coupling the participants tightly.
* This test demonstrates the basic expected behaviour in a simple but
* typical situation: two unrelated entities exchange a piece of data
* just by referring to a symbolic topic ID.
*
* @see advice.hpp
* @see AdviceSituations_test
* @see AdviceMultiplicity_test
* @see AdviceConfiguration_test
* @see AdviceBindingPattern_test
* @see AdviceIndex_test implementation test
*/
class AdviceBasics_test : public Test
{
virtual void
run (Arg)
{
seedRand();
simpleExchange();
createCollaboration();
overwriting_and_retracting();
}
/** @test the very basic usage situation: the advisor sets an information value
* and the advised entity picks it up. */
void
simpleExchange()
{
TheAdvised client; // implicitly opens an request-for-advice
CHECK (client.got (0)); // no advice yet --> getting the default int()
TheAdvisor server; // implicitly prepares an advice provision
CHECK (client.got (0)); // but as no advice was provided yet, nothing happens
int rr{ 1 + rani(1000)};
server.publish (rr); // now an match is detected, creating an advice channel
CHECK (client.got (rr)); // ..so the client can pick up the provided advice value
}
/** @test multiple ways how to initiate the advice collaboration */
void
createCollaboration()
{
TheAdvised client1 ("topic1()");
TheAdvisor server2 ("topic2()");
int r1{ 1 + rani(1000)};
int r2{ 1 + rani(1000)};
server2.publish (r2);
CHECK (client1.got(0));
TheAdvised client2 ("topic2()");
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
TheAdvisor server1;
CHECK (client1.got(0));
server1.publish (r1);
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
server1.rebind ("topic1()");
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
}
/** @test changing the provided advice, finally retracting it,
* causing fallback on the default value. Any given advisor
* can connect to the advice system with multiple bindings
* consecutively. The connection has no identity beside this
* binding, so another server (advisor) can step into an
* existing connection and overwrite or retract the advice.
* Unless retracted, advice remains in the system,
* even after the advisor is gone.
*/
void
overwriting_and_retracting()
{
TheAdvised client1 ("slot1");
TheAdvised client2 ("slot2");
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(0));
int r1{ 1 + rani(1000)};
int r2{ 1 + rani(1000)};
{
TheAdvisor server("slot1()");
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(0));
server.publish (r1);
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(0));
server.publish (r2);
CHECK (client1.got(r2));
CHECK (client2.got(0));
server.rebind("slot2()");
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
}
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
{
TheAdvisor anotherServer("slot1");
CHECK (client1.got(0));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
anotherServer.publish (r1);
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
}
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
{
TheAdvisor yetAnotherServer("slot2");
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
yetAnotherServer.publish (r1);
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r1));
yetAnotherServer.rebind("slot1");
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2)); // ideally it should be 0, but actually we uncover the old provision
// the decision was to err for a simple implementation /////////TICKET #623
yetAnotherServer.clear();
CHECK (client1.got(r1)); // should be 0, but again the existing provision is uncovered
CHECK (client2.got(r2)); // should be 0
yetAnotherServer.rebind("slot2"); // no effect, because it doesn't provide advice anymore
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(r2));
yetAnotherServer.publish (5);
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(5));
}
CHECK (client1.got(r1));
CHECK (client2.got(5));
client1.rebind("slot2");
CHECK (client1.got(5));
CHECK (client2.got(5));
client2.rebind("nonExistingSlot");
CHECK (client1.got(5));
CHECK (client2.got(0));
}
};
/** Register this test class... */
LAUNCHER (AdviceBasics_test, "unit common");
}}} // namespace lumiera::advice::test