So strategies available are:
a CandidateListOperator (the class used at the origin, could maybe be removed) compute a list of possible type for a FamixInvocation's receiver when: - the receiver is a Class (so its type is then evident :)) - the receiver is 'self' - the receiver is 'super'
a CandidateListOperatorAcceptingAnyKindOfReceiver compute a list of possible type for a FamixInvocation's receiver when: - the receiver is a Class (so its type is then evident :)) - the receiver is 'self' - the receiver is 'super' - the receiver is a FAMIXAttribute should normally accept any kind of receiver, but all type are not yet supported or implemented.
a CandidateListOperatorAcceptingBasicAndVariableReceivers compute a list of possible type for a FamixInvocation's receiver when: - the receiver is a Class (so its type is then evident :)) - the receiver is 'self' - the receiver is 'super' - the receiver is a FAMIXAttribute
a CandidateListOperatorAcceptingSimpleKindsOfReceiver compute a list of possible type for a FamixInvocation's receiver when: - the receiver is a Class (so its type is then evident :)) - the receiver is 'self' - the receiver is 'super' (so does the same job than the original class)
a CandidateListOperatorNotAcceptingAnyReceiver doesn't compute any possible type.
should normally accept any kind of receiver, but all type are not yet supported or implemented. 2010/8/18 Simon Denier Simon.Denier@inria.fr
On 18 août 2010, at 16:27, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I will try. In the meantime, I created a new issue. http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=435
Maybe it would be better to open an issue about testing AbstractCandidateListOperator subclasses, since they already use RoelTyper.
Cyrille, could you make a quick summary of the strategies available?
Cheers, Alexandre
On 18 Aug 2010, at 09:42, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi Alex
Did you try the different strategies provided for invocations resolution
in the importer wizard? Indeed, Cyrille coded a few strategies to use RoelTyper for better method resolution (as well as inference of instance variable types). Unfortunately, there are no test for this so I don't no how reliable it is. I would love to have tests and precision/recall score for these strategies!
On 18 août 2010, at 15:21, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
I am analyzing Mondrian in Moose. One thing that I am bumping into, is
that wrong dependencies are inferred whereas I am sure that they do not exist. This is not a new, we have to type in Smalltalk. For example:
MOEdge>>fromPositions ^ shape fromPositions
#fromPositions is implemented 3 times, by MOAbstractLayout, MOEdge, and
MOLineShape.
In the case of MOEdge>>fromPositions, I am sure that it does not invoke
MOAbstractLayout>>fromPositions
I guess that everyone analyzing smalltalk code bumped into this very
situation.
My question is how do we do in that case? One easy solution, is to annotate Mondrian with an adequate pragma:
MOEdge>>fromPositions <invoke: #fromPositions of: MOLineShape> ^ shape fromPositions
We can decline this pragma into: <doesNotInvoke: #selector of: AClass> <invoke: #fromPositions of: #(MOLineShape MOEdge)>
Simon told me Cyrille has worked on this problem. I am currently trying
to use RoelTyper.
Cheers, Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev