LUMIERA.clone/tests/library/advice/advice-index-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

429 lines
14 KiB
C++
Raw 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.

/*
AdviceIndex(Test) - cover the index datastructure used to implement Advice dispatch
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-index-test.cpp
** unit test \ref AdviceIndex_test
*/
#include "lib/test/run.hpp"
#include "lib/hash-value.h"
#include "common/advice/index.hpp"
#include <vector>
using lib::Literal;
namespace lumiera {
namespace advice {
namespace test {
namespace { // test support definitions
/**
* Test dummy record, representing
* either a provision or an request.
* The advice binding is simulated by
* storing a pattern matcher, and for
* the case of the advice request, the
* solution is simulated by a \c TestPOA*
*/
struct TestPOA
{
TestPOA* solution_;
Binding::Matcher pattern_;
explicit
TestPOA(Literal spec="missing")
: solution_(0)
, pattern_(Binding(spec).buildMatcher())
{ }
bool
matches (Literal refSpec) const
{
return pattern_.matches (Binding(refSpec));
}
void
changeBinding (Literal newSpec)
{
pattern_ = Binding(newSpec).buildMatcher();
}
/* == Adapter interface for use within the Index == */
void setSolution (TestPOA* p) { solution_ = p; }
const TestPOA* getSolution () const { return solution_;}
Binding::Matcher getMatcher () const { return pattern_; }
friend HashVal
hash_value (TestPOA const& entry)
{
return hash_value (entry.pattern_);
}
};
const uint MAX_TEST_ENTRIES = 10;
std::vector<TestPOA> testEntries(MAX_TEST_ENTRIES);
/** convenience shortcut for writing testcases inline */
inline TestPOA&
_entry (uint id, Literal spec)
{
REQUIRE (id < testEntries.size());
if (!testEntries[id].matches(spec))
testEntries[id] = TestPOA(spec);
return testEntries[id];
}
/** check if the given request got the denoted solution */
inline bool
_hasSolution (uint req, uint prov)
{
REQUIRE (req < testEntries.size());
REQUIRE (prov < testEntries.size());
return testEntries[req].solution_ == & testEntries[prov];
}
/** check if the given request holds a default solution */
inline bool
_hasDefault (uint req)
{
REQUIRE (req < testEntries.size());
return NULL == testEntries[req].solution_;
}
}
typedef Index<TestPOA> Index;
/**************************************************************************************//**
* @test the Advice system uses an index datastructure to support matching the bindings
* to get pairs of participants to connect by an individual advice channel.
*
* This test covers the properties of this implementation datastructure in isolation.
* We employ special \link TestPOA test entries \endlink, different from what is used
* in the advice system (contrary to the real thing we're not differentiating between
* advice request and advice provision, as for the test all we need is the possibility
* to set an "advice solution"). To use these test records, we create a specific
* instantiation of the advice::Index template solely for this test.
*
* @see advice.hpp
* @see AdviceBasics_test
* @see AdviceBindingPattern_test
*/
class AdviceIndex_test : public Test
{
virtual void
run (Arg)
{
Index idx;
buildIndex (idx);
addRequest (idx);
addProvision (idx);
removeRequest (idx);
retractProvision (idx);
modifyRequest (idx);
modifyProvision (idx);
clearIndex (idx);
}
void
buildIndex (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
CHECK (0 == idx.size());
idx.addRequest (_entry (1,"cat"));
idx.addRequest (_entry (2,"cat"));
idx.addRequest (_entry (3,"dog"));
CHECK (3 == idx.size());
CHECK (3 == idx.request_count());
CHECK (0 == idx.provision_count());
idx.addProvision (_entry (4,"dog"));
CHECK (4 == idx.size());
CHECK (3 == idx.request_count());
CHECK (1 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (_hasDefault (1));
CHECK (_hasDefault (2));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,4));
CHECK (idx.isValid());
}
void
addRequest (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint req_cnt = idx.request_count();
idx.addRequest (_entry (5,"dog"));
idx.addRequest (_entry (6,"cat"));
CHECK (idx.hasRequest (_entry (5,"dog")));
CHECK (idx.hasRequest (_entry (6,"cat")));
CHECK (_hasDefault (6));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,4));
CHECK (idx.isValid());
CHECK (2 + req_cnt == idx.request_count());
}
void
addProvision (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint r_cnt = idx.request_count();
uint p_cnt = idx.provision_count();
CHECK (_hasDefault (1));
CHECK (_hasDefault (2));
CHECK (_hasDefault (6));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,4));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,4));
idx.addProvision (_entry (7,"cat"));
CHECK (idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // all cats got the cat solution
CHECK (_hasSolution (2,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,4)); // dogs unaltered
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,4));
CHECK (idx.isValid());
CHECK (1 + p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (0 + r_cnt == idx.request_count());
idx.addProvision (_entry (8,"dog"));
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // cats remain unaffected
CHECK (_hasSolution (2,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8)); // all dogs got the new solution
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,8));
CHECK (idx.isValid());
CHECK (2 + p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (0 + r_cnt == idx.request_count());
}
void
removeRequest (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint r_cnt = idx.request_count();
uint p_cnt = idx.provision_count();
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (2,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,8));
CHECK ( idx.hasRequest (_entry (2,"cat")));
idx.removeRequest (_entry (2,"cat"));
CHECK (!idx.hasRequest (_entry (2,"cat")));
CHECK (p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt-1 == idx.request_count());
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // no effect on the other requests
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,8));
idx.removeRequest (_entry (2,"cat")); // idempotent
CHECK (!idx.hasRequest (_entry (2,"cat")));
CHECK (p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt-1 == idx.request_count());
CHECK (idx.isValid());
}
void
retractProvision (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint r_cnt = idx.request_count();
uint p_cnt = idx.provision_count();
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,8));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (4,"dog")));
idx.removeProvision (_entry (4,"dog"));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (4,"dog")));
CHECK (p_cnt-1 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // no effect on the solutions, because of the more recent dog solution 8
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,8));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (8,"dog")));
idx.removeProvision (_entry (8,"dog"));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (8,"dog")));
CHECK (p_cnt-2 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // no effect on the cat solutions
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (!_hasSolution (3,8));
CHECK (!_hasSolution (5,8));
CHECK (_hasDefault (3)); // but all dog requests reverted to default
CHECK (_hasDefault (5));
idx.removeProvision (_entry (8,"dog")); // idempotent
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (8,"dog")));
CHECK (p_cnt-2 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (idx.isValid());
}
void
modifyRequest (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint r_cnt = idx.request_count();
uint p_cnt = idx.provision_count();
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasDefault (3));
CHECK (_hasDefault (5));
HashVal dogHash (hash_value (_entry (5,"dog")));
CHECK ( idx.hasRequest (_entry (5,"dog")));
_entry (5,"dog").changeBinding("cat"); // transmogrify existing request into cat-request
CHECK (_hasDefault (5)); // of course this didn't change the solution
CHECK (!idx.hasRequest (_entry (5,"cat"))); // can't find it anymore because of changed binding
idx.modifyRequest (dogHash, _entry (5,"cat"));
CHECK ( idx.hasRequest (_entry (5,"cat")));
CHECK (p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasDefault (3));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,7)); // automatically got the current cat solution
}
void
modifyProvision (Index& idx)
{
CHECK (idx.isValid());
uint r_cnt = idx.request_count();
uint p_cnt = idx.provision_count();
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasDefault (3));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (8,"dog")));
idx.modifyProvision (_entry (7,"cat"), _entry (8,"dog"));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (8,"dog")));
CHECK (p_cnt == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (_hasDefault (1));
CHECK (_hasDefault (5));
CHECK (_hasDefault (6));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8));
idx.addProvision (_entry (7,"cat"));
idx.addProvision (_entry (9,"cat"));
CHECK (p_cnt+2 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK (idx.hasProvision (_entry (9,"cat")));
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,9)); // all cats got the second cat solution
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,9));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,9));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,8)); // the dog is unaffected
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (4,"dog")));
idx.modifyProvision (_entry (7,"cat"), _entry (4,"dog"));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (4,"dog")));
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,9)); // cats unaffected, because we're changing a shadowed cat provision
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,9));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,9));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,4)); // but the dog got switched to the replaced-by-dog solution,
// because it was added later than the existing solution 8
// a switch within the same cluster ("cat")
idx.modifyProvision (_entry (9,"cat"), _entry (7,"cat"));
CHECK (!idx.hasProvision (_entry (9,"cat")));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (7,"cat")));
CHECK ( idx.hasProvision (_entry (4,"dog")));
CHECK (_hasSolution (1,7)); // because cat-7 is newly added, it shadows the older cat-9
CHECK (_hasSolution (5,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (6,7));
CHECK (_hasSolution (3,4)); // but dog remains dog
CHECK (p_cnt+2 == idx.provision_count());
CHECK (r_cnt == idx.request_count());
CHECK (idx.isValid());
}
void
clearIndex (Index& idx)
{
idx.clear();
CHECK (idx.isValid());
CHECK (0 == idx.size());
}
};
/** Register this test class... */
LAUNCHER (AdviceIndex_test, "function common");
}}} // namespace lumiera::advice::test