On 18 août 2010, at 17:07, Cyrille Delaunay wrote:

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'

So now it''s the same as CandidateListOperatorAcceptingSimpleKindsOfReceiver right?


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.

CandidateListOperatorAcceptingBasicAndVariableReceivers
CandidateListOperatorAcceptingSimpleKindsOfReceiver
are nowadays the same?

Nowadays there are some tests for candidates, which imply testing CandidateListOperator. We should have independent tests for each strategy (best would be to extract the current tests for candidates, and also start testing CandidateListOperatorAcceptingBasicAndVariableReceivers which might have good precision)



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

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

--
 Simon