about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/050scenario.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 3724 - flag duplicate scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-12-271-2/+23
| | | | | | I took this feature out in 3161 (back in Aug) to support scenarios in lesson/recipes.mu. Setting up snapshots for scenario data structures gives us the best of both worlds.
* 3708Kartik K. Agaram2016-12-121-0/+1
| | | | Fix CI.
* 3707Kartik K. Agaram2016-12-121-0/+6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Be more disciplined about tagging 2 different concepts in the codebase: a) Use the phrase "later layers" to highlight places where a layer doesn't have the simplest possible self-contained implementation. b) Use the word "hook" to point out functions that exist purely to provide waypoints for extension by future layers. Since both these only make sense in the pre-tangled representation of the codebase, using '//:' and '#:' comments to get them stripped out of tangled output. (Though '#:' comments still make it to tangled output at the moment. Let's see if we use it enough to be worth supporting. Scenarios are pretty unreadable in tangled output anyway.)
* 3677 - gracefully handle parse errors in scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-11-151-3/+26
| | | | Thanks Jack Couch for running into this.
* 3676 - stop scenarios on error in transformKartik K. Agaram2016-11-151-1/+10
| | | | Thanks Jack Couch for running into this.
* 3675Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-151-2/+2
|
* 3663 - fix a refcounting bug: '(type)' != 'type'Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-101-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This was a large commit, and most of it is a follow-up to commit 3309, undoing what is probably the final ill-considered optimization I added to s-expressions in Mu: I was always representing (a b c) as (a b . c), etc. That is now gone. Why did I need to take it out? The key problem was the error silently ignored in layer 30. That was causing size_of("(type)") to silently return garbage rather than loudly complain (assuming 'type' was a simple type). But to take it out I had to modify types_strictly_match (layer 21) to actually strictly match and not just do a prefix match. In the process of removing the prefix match, I had to make extracting recipe types from recipe headers more robust. So far it only matched the first element of each ingredient's type; these matched: (recipe address:number -> address:number) (recipe address -> address) I didn't notice because the dotted notation optimization was actually representing this as: (recipe address:number -> address number) --- One final little thing in this commit: I added an alias for 'assert' called 'assert_for_now', to indicate that I'm not sure something's really an invariant, that it might be triggered by (invalid) user programs, and so require more thought on error handling down the road. But this may well be an ill-posed distinction. It may be overwhelmingly uneconomic to continually distinguish between model invariants and error states for input. I'm starting to grow sympathetic to Google Analytics's recent approach of just banning assertions altogether. We'll see..
* 3643Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-071-2/+2
| | | | | Standardize on calling literate waypoints "Special-cases" rather than "Cases". Invariably there's a default path already present.
* 3630 - generate trace for a single scenarioKartik K. Agaram2016-11-061-0/+4
| | | | | | | | To do so, run: $ ./mu --trace test <scenario name> The trace will then be in file 'interactive'.
* 3623Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-051-0/+1
| | | | Umpteenth bugfix to ensure we show the number of failed scenarios.
* 3593Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-251-1/+2
|
* 3561Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-221-7/+8
|
* 3555Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-221-1/+1
|
* 3539Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-211-0/+30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Always check if next_word() returned an empty string (if it hit eof). Thanks Rebecca Allard for running into a crash when a .mu file ends with '{' (without a following newline). Open question: how to express the constraint that next_word() should always check if its result is empty? Can *any* type system do that?! Even the usual constraint that we must use a result isn't iron-clad: you could save the result in a variable but then ignore it. Unless you go to Go's extraordinary lengths of considering any dead code an error.
* 3532Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-201-2/+0
| | | | Coalesce all the management of number of failed scenarios.
* 3531Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-201-3/+3
| | | | | Be consistent in checking for Scenario_testing_scenario when signalling that a Mu scenario failed.
* 3530Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-201-1/+1
| | | | Coalesce some duplicate signalling that the current test failed.
* 3522Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-191-8/+8
|
* 3429 - standardize Mu scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-09-281-31/+11
| | | | | | | | | | | | | A long-standing problem has been that I couldn't spread code across 'run' blocks because they were separate scopes, so I've ended up making them effectively comments. Running code inside a 'run' block is identical in every way to simply running the code directly. The 'run' block is merely a visual aid to separate setup from the component under test. In the process I've also standardized all Mu scenarios to always run in a local scope, and only use (raw) numeric addresses for values they want to check later.
* 3425 - support for disabling some scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-09-271-0/+4
|
* 3424Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-271-1/+5
|
* 3385Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-19/+19
|
* 3376 - start maximally using all type abbreviationsKartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-1/+1
| | | | | | It might be too much, particularly if students start peeking inside .mu files early. But worth a shot for not just to iron out the kinks in the abbreviation system.
* 3374Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-161-2/+2
|
* 3366Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-151-1/+1
| | | | | | Small bugfix in error messages for scenarios: we're trying to use read_mu_string() on an array of characters rather than an address to an array of characters. So we need to pretend we have a refcount.
* 3327Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-111-1/+1
|
* 3309Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-091-3/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rip out everything to fix one failing unit test (commit 3290; type abbreviations). This commit does several things at once that I couldn't come up with a clean way to unpack: A. It moves to a new representation for type trees without changing the actual definition of the `type_tree` struct. B. It adds unit tests for our type metadata precomputation, so that errors there show up early and in a simpler setting rather than dying when we try to load Mu code. C. It fixes a bug, guarding against infinite loops when precomputing metadata for recursive shape-shifting containers. To do this it uses a dumb way of comparing type_trees, comparing their string representations instead. That is likely incredibly inefficient. Perhaps due to C, this commit has made Mu incredibly slow. Running all tests for the core and the edit/ app now takes 6.5 minutes rather than 3.5 minutes. == more notes and details I've been struggling for the past week now to back out of a bad design decision, a premature optimization from the early days: storing atoms directly in the 'value' slot of a cons cell rather than creating a special 'atom' cons cell and storing it on the 'left' slot. In other words, if a cons cell looks like this: o / | \ left val right ..then the type_tree (a b c) used to look like this (before this commit): o | \ a o | \ b o | \ c null ..rather than like this 'classic' approach to s-expressions which never mixes val and right (which is what we now have): o / \ o o | / \ a o o | / \ b o null | c The old approach made several operations more complicated, most recently the act of replacing a (possibly atom/leaf) sub-tree with another. That was the final straw that got me to realize the contortions I was going through to save a few type_tree nodes (cons cells). Switching to the new approach was hard partly because I've been using the old approach for so long and type_tree manipulations had pervaded everything. Another issue I ran into was the realization that my layers were not cleanly separated. Key parts of early layers (precomputing type metadata) existed purely for far later ones (shape-shifting types). Layers I got repeatedly stuck at: 1. the transform for precomputing type sizes (layer 30) 2. type-checks on merge instructions (layer 31) 3. the transform for precomputing address offsets in types (layer 36) 4. replace operations in supporting shape-shifting recipes (layer 55) After much thrashing I finally noticed that it wasn't the entirety of these layers that was giving me trouble, but just the type metadata precomputation, which had bugs that weren't manifesting until 30 layers later. Or, worse, when loading .mu files before any tests had had a chance to run. A common failure mode was running into types at run time that I hadn't precomputed metadata for at transform time. Digging into these bugs got me to realize that what I had before wasn't really very good, but a half-assed heuristic approach that did a whole lot of extra work precomputing metadata for utterly meaningless types like `((address number) 3)` which just happened to be part of a larger type like `(array (address number) 3)`. So, I redid it all. I switched the representation of types (because the old representation made unit tests difficult to retrofit) and added unit tests to the metadata precomputation. I also made layer 30 only do the minimal metadata precomputation it needs for the concepts introduced until then. In the process, I also made the precomputation more correct than before, and added hooks in the right place so that I could augment the logic when I introduced shape-shifting containers. == lessons learned There's several levels of hygiene when it comes to layers: 1. Every layer introduces precisely what it needs and in the simplest way possible. If I was building an app until just that layer, nothing would seem over-engineered. 2. Some layers are fore-shadowing features in future layers. Sometimes this is ok. For example, layer 10 foreshadows containers and arrays and so on without actually supporting them. That is a net win because it lets me lay out the core of Mu's data structures out in one place. But if the fore-shadowing gets too complex things get nasty. Not least because it can be hard to write unit tests for features before you provide the plumbing to visualize and manipulate them. 3. A layer is introducing features that are tested only in later layers. 4. A layer is introducing features with tests that are invalidated in later layers. (This I knew from early on to be an obviously horrendous idea.) Summary: avoid Level 2 (foreshadowing layers) as much as possible. Tolerate it indefinitely for small things where the code stays simple over time, but become strict again when things start to get more complex. Level 3 is mostly a net lose, but sometimes it can be expedient (a real case of the usually grossly over-applied term "technical debt"), and it's better than the conventional baseline of no layers and no scenarios. Just clean it up as soon as possible. Definitely avoid layer 4 at any time. == minor lessons Avoid unit tests for trivial things, write scenarios in context as much as possible. But within those margins unit tests are fine. Just introduce them before any scenarios (commit 3297). Reorganizing layers can be easy. Just merge layers for starters! Punt on resplitting them in some new way until you've gotten them to work. This is the wisdom of Refactoring: small steps. What made it hard was not wanting to merge *everything* between layer 30 and 55. The eventual insight was realizing I just need to move those two full-strength transforms and nothing else.
* 3294Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-021-1/+1
|
* 3273Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-281-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | Undo 3272. The trouble with creating a new section for constants is that there's no good place to order it since constants can be initialized using globals as well as vice versa. And I don't want to add constraints disallowing either side. Instead, a new plan: always declare constants in the Globals section using 'extern const' rather than just 'const', since otherwise constants implicitly have internal linkage (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14894698/why-does-extern-const-int-n-not-work-as-expected)
* 3252Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-251-1/+1
|
* 3247Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-251-4/+4
|
* 3188Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-141-2/+2
|
* 3177Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-131-1/+2
| | | | Systematize all the newlines while displaying test progress.
* 3176Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-131-7/+9
| | | | Don't print the header for 'Mu tests' if there are no Mu tests to run.
* 3175Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-131-1/+0
|
* 3172Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-121-4/+0
| | | | Fix CI.
* 3170 - multiple --options at the commandlineKartik K. Agaram2016-08-121-1/+8
| | | | | | | | The mu commandline now has four parts: options, commands (of which we only have one so far: 'test'), files/directories and ingredients to pass to 'main'. That cleans up the hacky ordering constraint we had earlier. I've also cleaned up the usage message.
* 3169Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-121-15/+19
| | | | | Fix a bug with --test-only-app: the "App tests" header was only printing after some app tests had run.
* 3161Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-091-5/+0
| | | | | | | | | Toss out Scenario_names. It's only checking if we load duplicate scenarios, and we have independent checks for *running* duplicate scenarios. This has the salubrious effect of also allowing lessons to contain regular text scenarios interspersed with their recipes.
* 3137Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-221-0/+9
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Complicated logic to not run core tests. I only want to disable core tests if: a) I'm changing CFLAGS on the commandline (usually to disable optimizations, causing tests to run slower in a debug cycle) b) I'm not printing a help message (either with just 'mu' or 'mu --help') c) I'm loading other files besides just the core. Under these circumstances I only want to run tests in the files explicitly loaded at the commandline. This is all pretty hairy, in spite of my attempts to document it in four different places. I might end up taking it all out the first time I need to run core tests under all these conditions.
* 3126Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-221-4/+1
|
* 3122Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-221-16/+4
| | | | More accurate count of failing tests.
* 3120Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-211-1/+1
| | | | | | | | Always show instruction before any transforms in error messages. This is likely going to make some errors unclear because they *need* to show the original instruction. But if we don't have tests for those situations did they ever really work?
* 3118Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-211-2/+2
| | | | | Failures in scenarios should consistently trigger the summary message showing number of failed tests.
* 3115Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-201-10/+10
| | | | Fix CI.
* 3114Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-201-2/+8
| | | | Better error messages on missing traces in Mu scenarios.
* 3108Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-101-1/+3
|
* 3101 - purge .traces/ dir from repo historyKartik K. Agaram2016-07-051-5/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I'd been toying with this idea for some time now given how large the repo had been growing. The final straw was noticing that people cloning the repo were having to wait *5 minutes*! That's not good, particularly for a project with 'tiny' in its description. After purging .traces/ clone time drops to 7 seconds in my tests. Major issue: some commits refer to .traces/ but don't really change anything there. That could get confusing :/ Minor issues: a) I've linked inside commits on GitHub like a half-dozen times online or over email. Those links are now liable to eventually break. (I seem to recall GitHub keeps them around as long as they get used at least once every 60 days, or something like that.) b) Numbering of commits is messed up because some commits only had changes to the .traces/ sub-directory.
* 3022Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-271-8/+74
| | | | Clean up 3020.
* 2990Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-201-16/+16
| | | | | | | | | | Standardize quotes around reagents in error messages. I'm still sure there's issues. For example, the messages when type-checking 'copy'. I'm not putting quotes around them because in layer 60 I end up creating dilated reagents, and then it's a bit much to have quotes and (two kinds of) brackets. But I'm sure I'm doing that somewhere..