about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 1270 - we can now pass ingredients to routines as we start themKartik K. Agaram2015-05-054-5/+47
|
* 1269 - 'wait-for-routine'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0563-324/+423
|
* 1268Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-052-1/+2
|
* 1267 - 'routine-state' can use the provided routine idKartik K. Agaram2015-05-0563-322/+396
|
* 1266 - 'start-running' returns a unique routine idKartik K. Agaram2015-05-052-1/+55
|
* 1265Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0520-110/+110
|
* 1264Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-053-8/+8
|
* 1263Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-051-0/+3
|
* 1262Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-051-2/+2
|
* 1261Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-044-7/+7
|
* 1260Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-041-1/+1
|
* 1259 - better failure messages for mu scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-05-041-2/+12
|
* 1258Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-041-0/+3
|
* 1257Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-4/+5
|
* 1256 - scenarios now support keyboardKartik K. Agaram2015-05-045-0/+1061
|
* 1255 - keyboard supportKartik K. Agaram2015-05-046-5/+47
|
* 1254Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-3/+6
|
* 1253 - new notion of 'predefined globals in scenarios'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-047-37/+56
|
* 1252 - big-picture memory layoutKartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-1/+16
|
* 1251 - cleanup flow of 'scenario' implementationKartik K. Agaram2015-05-042-357/+375
|
* 1250Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-043-0/+2287
|
* 1249 - new type: index_tKartik K. Agaram2015-05-0427-104/+105
| | | | | | | | It will always be identical to size_t, just more readable, like recipe_number, etc. The various unsigned types are sizes, indices (which often compare with sizes for bounds checking), numbers which are canonical elements of a specific space (like recipes or mu types), and ids which I haven't introduced yet.
* 1248 - syntax for using screens in scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-05-0421-36/+1953
| | | | Still ugly as hell.
* 1247Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0381-992/+1002
|
* 1246Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-03140-2255/+2255
|
* 1245Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-032-2/+2
|
* 1244Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0342-178/+173
|
* 1243Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-031-1/+1
|
* 1242 - simpler implementation for 'scenario'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-0254-1042/+2227
| | | | | Also now has the side effect that scenarios can have any number of 'run' or check or any future blocks, in any order.
* 1241 - bugfix: comments inside run [ ... ]Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-025-21/+73
|
* 1240 - fix a spuriously passing testKartik K. Agaram2015-05-023-16/+45
| | | | | | Running list of non-obvious special cases in tangle: a) trace checks are sometimes grouped, sometimes not (previous commit) b) comments are sometimes passed through, sometimes not
* 1239 - scheduler bugfixKartik K. Agaram2015-05-024-1/+117
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In the process, some extra unit tests as well. The final scenario is newly fixed. Between the earlier support for '%' escaping C code inside scenarios, and the previous commit, we now actually have the ability to setup the Routines data structure just so to simulate different situations. One unanticipated but happy consequence of ignoring run(""): I can interleave '+' lines with '-' lines to avoid making any ordering assertions between '+' lines. So the '+' lines here are checked in order: +layer1: a +layer3: c But here they will pass even if present out of order: +layer1: a -layer2: b +layer3: c This might be too confusing. In general, relying on run("") is just a temporary hack. It might well have even worse counter-intuitive effects. At least I'm not seeing any string-escaping issues so far.
* 1238 - stop dying on run("")Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-021-0/+1
| | | | | | | | This makes our scenarios more flexible; we can now accept '+' and '-' trace lines in any order, because the tangler simply inserts a no-op run("") between them, and since we don't '===' clear the trace in between, later checks continue to apply to the trace from the first call to run().
* 1237 - more lenient 'tangle'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-011-17/+7
| | | | | | | If the scenario has no trace checks, just run it and check for segfaults or whatnot. The function you're running may also flag test errors internally.
* 1236Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-011-2/+1
|
* 1235Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-014-0/+155
|
* 1234 - support for trace checksKartik K. Agaram2015-05-017-17/+212
|
* 1233Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-012-0/+16
|
* 1232Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-011-0/+5
|
* 1231Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-015-0/+254
|
* 1230 - start building scenarios out of 'pseudo recipes'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-013-0/+116
|
* 1229Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-017-19/+19
|
* 1228Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-301-1/+1
|
* 1227Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-302-0/+1101
|
* 1226 - bugfix in allocating arraysKartik K. Agaram2015-04-3032-2686/+3270
| | | | Also our first test of printing to screen.
* 1225Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-29119-0/+1909
| | | | Finally start tracing the actual instructions as they run.
* 1224Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-291-0/+0
|
* 1223 - more stable traces for parse scenariosKartik K. Agaram2015-04-29149-477/+476
|
* 1222Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-293-5/+28
|
* 1221Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-291-0/+0
|
generated by cgit-pink 1.4.1-2-gfad0 (git 2.36.2.497.gbbea4dcf42) at 2024-11-04 19:16:20 +0000