| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Umpteenth bugfix to ensure we show the number of failed scenarios.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Coalesce all the management of number of failed scenarios.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Be consistent in checking for Scenario_testing_scenario when signalling
that a Mu scenario failed.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Coalesce some duplicate signalling that the current test failed.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Systematize all the newlines while displaying test progress.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Don't print the header for 'Mu tests' if there are no Mu tests to run.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fix a bug with --test-only-app: the "App tests" header was only printing
after some app tests had run.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
More accurate count of failing tests.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Failures in scenarios should consistently trigger the summary message
showing number of failed tests.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Better error messages on missing traces in Mu scenarios.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Clean up 3020.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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..
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Long-overdue reorganization to support general 'dilated' reagents up
front. This also allows me to move tests that are really about unrelated
layers out of layers dealing with parsing.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This is hopefully quite thorough. I handle nested containers, as well as
exclusive containers that might contain addresses only when the tag has
a specific value.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
Phew!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Turns out one of my chessboard tests has been silently deadlocking and
therefore not actually checking its results since at least commit 1620
last June.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Show more thorough information about instructions in the trace, but keep
the original form in error messages.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That
way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very
slowly decide on the right terminology with my students.
I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses
it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient?
It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I
do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on
github and for people learning programming using Mu.
|