Hi,
We have improved MooseChef with a generic version MooseQuery. In the following when we talk about MooseChef, it means the current version available by default in Moose. When we talk about MooseQuery, it means the generic improved version, available on Anne’s smalltalkHub repository.
All the tests of MooseChef except 4 are passing when using our new MooseQuery API. These four tests concern the same point package scope for extension method.
Considering classA having a method methodA1 calling a method methodBExt1 that extends classB. classB is defined in pckgB and its extension method by pckgC. Considering the two following requests: 1. classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope 2. classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
To the first query, MooseChef and MooseQuery answer the same: pckgB To the second query, MooseChef answers pckgC and MooseQuery answers pckgB and pckgC.
So first question: What is the expected behavior? What do we want? According to us, MooseQuery behavior is more consistent.
*************** Considering now Java code. class1 contains a method method1 which in its turn contains an inner class innerClass2. innerClass2 contains 2 methods method21 and method22. the following query: innerClass2 methodScope
In MooseChef this query has for result method21 and method22.
The following query: innerClass2 atScope: FAMIXMethod In MooseQuery this query has for result method1. Indeed, the atScope: method look for the container (also called parent).
So the second question: what is the expected behavior? Do we want like in MooseQuery that atScope: by default always goes up in the containment tree since it is a generic version of atTypeScope, atPackageScope... and do we want another method to goes down in the containment tree? In MooseChef, methodScope, always goes down to look for the contained methods. typeScope always goes up except for ScopingEntities. These methods have been implemented for each type of entities. It is what we want to avoid with MooseQuery.
******************
It is clear that Synectique will soon migrate to this new version and that our project of SQL analysis will also use it. Please don’t hesitate to use it. MCHttpRepository location: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/AnneEtien/MooseQueryDraft/main' user: '' password: ‘'
We will do as soon as possible a small doc to explain the usage.
Thank you in advance for your answer to our questions. Jean-Christophe and Anne
Hi,
Very nice work. See more answers inline.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Anne Etien anne.etien@univ-lille1.fr wrote:
Hi,
We have improved MooseChef with a generic version MooseQuery. In the following when we talk about MooseChef, it means the current version available by default in Moose. When we talk about MooseQuery, it means the generic improved version, available on Anne’s smalltalkHub repository.
All the tests of MooseChef except 4 are passing when using our new MooseQuery API. These four tests concern the same point package scope for extension method.
Considering classA having a method methodA1 calling a method methodBExt1 that extends classB. classB is defined in pckgB and its extension method by pckgC. Considering the two following requests:
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
To the first query, MooseChef and MooseQuery answer the same: pckgB To the second query, MooseChef answers pckgC and MooseQuery answers pckgB and pckgC.
So first question: What is the expected behavior? What do we want? According to us, MooseQuery behavior is more consistent.
In this example, the MooseChef is the more consistent one. Here is why. at*Scope is applied to target entities (like opposites), not to associations. In the second case, the associations point only to methodBExt1. Thus, the expected at*Scope is applied on only methodBExt1 (and not to its class). This should be preserved.
Imagine that you would like to reason about dependencies between pckgA, pckgB, and pckgC, and imagine that the contract we are looking for is to only allow pckgA to depend on pckgC. Having a way to query that the dependencies do not actually go to pckgB is quite important.
I understand how this can be difficult to implement in the current implementation, given that for atPackageScope you depend on traversing the defined parentSelectors, but this is an important issue and we should find a way to deal with it.
How about if there is a parentSelector that satisfies the condition for the current entity, we do not traverse further? So, if you start from a FAMIXMethod, you will stop because there is a parentPackage. What do you think?
Considering now Java code. class1 contains a method method1 which in its turn contains an inner class innerClass2. innerClass2 contains 2 methods method21 and method22. the following query: innerClass2 methodScope
In MooseChef this query has for result method21 and method22.
The following query: innerClass2 atScope: FAMIXMethod In MooseQuery this query has for result method1. Indeed, the atScope: method look for the container (also called parent).
So the second question: what is the expected behavior? Do we want like in MooseQuery that atScope: by default always goes up in the containment tree since it is a generic version of atTypeScope, atPackageScope... and do we want another method to goes down in the containment tree? In MooseChef, methodScope, always goes down to look for the contained methods. typeScope always goes up except for ScopingEntities. These methods have been implemented for each type of entities. It is what we want to avoid with MooseQuery.
Indeed, this semantics of at*Scope is confusing. It was tempting to do it at the time, but since then I basically never used it, so we should discard. And indeed, adding another operator like to*Scope would be both simpler to understand and safer to use.
******************
It is clear that Synectique will soon migrate to this new version and that our project of SQL analysis will also use it. Please don’t hesitate to use it. MCHttpRepository location: ' http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/AnneEtien/MooseQueryDraft/main' user: '' password: ‘'
We will do as soon as possible a small doc to explain the usage.
Thank you in advance for your answer to our questions.
So, I looked at the code a bit. We should integrate this as soon as possible.
However, first we need to address a couple of issues: - the traversing of parents like described above - there should be no need for the parentMetaClass: annotation. This is derived from the parentSelector - the parentSelector annotation should be moved to the method that defines the property. Also, we should prefix it with MSE and I would call it ParentScope. So, something like this: FAMIXType>>container <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^container
Cheers, Doru
Hi,
Very nice work. See more answers inline.
Thanks!
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Anne Etien anne.etien@univ-lille1.fr wrote:
Hi,
We have improved MooseChef with a generic version MooseQuery. In the following when we talk about MooseChef, it means the current version available by default in Moose. When we talk about MooseQuery, it means the generic improved version, available on Anne’s smalltalkHub repository.
All the tests of MooseChef except 4 are passing when using our new MooseQuery API. These four tests concern the same point package scope for extension method.
Considering classA having a method methodA1 calling a method methodBExt1 that extends classB. classB is defined in pckgB and its extension method by pckgC. Considering the two following requests:
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
To the first query, MooseChef and MooseQuery answer the same: pckgB To the second query, MooseChef answers pckgC and MooseQuery answers pckgB and pckgC.
So first question: What is the expected behavior? What do we want? According to us, MooseQuery behavior is more consistent.
In this example, the MooseChef is the more consistent one. Here is why. at*Scope is applied to target entities (like opposites), not to associations. In the second case, the associations point only to methodBExt1. Thus, the expected at*Scope is applied on only methodBExt1 (and not to its class). This should be preserved.
Imagine that you would like to reason about dependencies between pckgA, pckgB, and pckgC, and imagine that the contract we are looking for is to only allow pckgA to depend on pckgC. Having a way to query that the dependencies do not actually go to pckgB is quite important.
We are not sure to understand. With MooseChef, if you work at class level, you need to load pckgB because of classB. If you work at package level, you do not see the dependency to pckgB and load only pckgC. However pckgC cannot be loaded without pckgB (methodBExt1 cannot exist if pckgB is not loaded). So, it is true that methodBExt1 directly depends on only pckgC but it also depends indirectly on pckgB, which is quite important to know. Without pckgB, classB does not exist and also methodBExt1. MooseQuery has the advantage to be consistent when working at class level or package level.
I understand how this can be difficult to implement in the current implementation, given that for atPackageScope you depend on traversing the defined parentSelectors, but this is an important issue and we should find a way to deal with it.
How about if there is a parentSelector that satisfies the condition for the current entity, we do not traverse further? So, if you start from a FAMIXMethod, you will stop because there is a parentPackage. What do you think?
Considering now Java code. class1 contains a method method1 which in its turn contains an inner class innerClass2. innerClass2 contains 2 methods method21 and method22. the following query: innerClass2 methodScope
In MooseChef this query has for result method21 and method22.
The following query: innerClass2 atScope: FAMIXMethod In MooseQuery this query has for result method1. Indeed, the atScope: method look for the container (also called parent).
So the second question: what is the expected behavior? Do we want like in MooseQuery that atScope: by default always goes up in the containment tree since it is a generic version of atTypeScope, atPackageScope... and do we want another method to goes down in the containment tree? In MooseChef, methodScope, always goes down to look for the contained methods. typeScope always goes up except for ScopingEntities. These methods have been implemented for each type of entities. It is what we want to avoid with MooseQuery.
Indeed, this semantics of at*Scope is confusing. It was tempting to do it at the time, but since then I basically never used it, so we should discard. And indeed, adding another operator like to*Scope would be both simpler to understand and safer to use.
We will try to do it.
It is clear that Synectique will soon migrate to this new version and that our project of SQL analysis will also use it. Please don’t hesitate to use it. MCHttpRepository location: ' http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/AnneEtien/MooseQueryDraft/main' user: '' password: ‘'
We will do as soon as possible a small doc to explain the usage.
Thank you in advance for your answer to our questions.
So, I looked at the code a bit. We should integrate this as soon as possible.
However, first we need to address a couple of issues:
- the traversing of parents like described above
As explained above, we disagree.
- there should be no need for the parentMetaClass: annotation. This is
derived from the parentSelector
- the parentSelector annotation should be moved to the method that defines
the property. Also, we should prefix it with MSE and I would call it ParentScope. So, something like this: FAMIXType>>container <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^container
We will try to do it now.
Cheers,
Anne & JC
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jean-Christophe Bach < jeanchristophe.bach@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Very nice work. See more answers inline.
Thanks!
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Anne Etien anne.etien@univ-lille1.fr wrote:
Hi,
We have improved MooseChef with a generic version MooseQuery. In the following when we talk about MooseChef, it means the current version available by default in Moose. When we talk about MooseQuery,
it
means the generic improved version, available on Anne’s smalltalkHub repository.
All the tests of MooseChef except 4 are passing when using our new MooseQuery API. These four tests concern the same point package scope for extension
method.
Considering classA having a method methodA1 calling a method
methodBExt1
that extends classB. classB is defined in pckgB and its extension method by pckgC. Considering the two following requests:
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
To the first query, MooseChef and MooseQuery answer the same: pckgB To the second query, MooseChef answers pckgC and MooseQuery answers
pckgB
and pckgC.
So first question: What is the expected behavior? What do we want? According to us, MooseQuery behavior is more consistent.
In this example, the MooseChef is the more consistent one. Here is why. at*Scope is applied to target entities (like opposites), not to associations. In the second case, the associations point only to methodBExt1. Thus, the expected at*Scope is applied on only methodBExt1 (and not to its class). This should be preserved.
Imagine that you would like to reason about dependencies between pckgA, pckgB, and pckgC, and imagine that the contract we are looking for is to only allow pckgA to depend on pckgC. Having a way to query that the dependencies do not actually go to pckgB is quite important.
We are not sure to understand. With MooseChef, if you work at class level, you need to load pckgB because of classB. If you work at package level, you do not see the dependency to pckgB and load only pckgC. However pckgC cannot be loaded without pckgB (methodBExt1 cannot exist if pckgB is not loaded). So, it is true that methodBExt1 directly depends on only pckgC but it also depends indirectly on pckgB, which is quite important to know. Without pckgB, classB does not exist and also methodBExt1. MooseQuery has the advantage to be consistent when working at class level or package level.
Consider that classA inherits from classX which is in packageX. ClassA cannot exist without classX, but still you do not want this in the list of dependencies. I think the same should apply to your case.
On the other hand, I think that we could still keep your behavior and when we only want packageC, we could say:
*classA queryOutgoingInvocation atMethodScope atPackageScope ==> packageC*
I did not try. Would that be correct?
I understand how this can be difficult to implement in the current implementation, given that for atPackageScope you depend on traversing
the
defined parentSelectors, but this is an important issue and we should
find
a way to deal with it.
How about if there is a parentSelector that satisfies the condition for
the
current entity, we do not traverse further? So, if you start from a FAMIXMethod, you will stop because there is a parentPackage. What do you think?
Considering now Java code. class1 contains a method method1 which in its turn contains an inner
class
innerClass2. innerClass2 contains 2 methods method21 and method22. the following query: innerClass2 methodScope
In MooseChef this query has for result method21 and method22.
The following query: innerClass2 atScope: FAMIXMethod In MooseQuery this query has for result method1. Indeed, the atScope: method look for the container (also called parent).
So the second question: what is the expected behavior? Do we want like
in
MooseQuery that atScope: by default always goes up in the containment
tree
since it is a generic version of atTypeScope, atPackageScope... and do
we
want another method to goes down in the containment tree? In MooseChef, methodScope, always goes down to look for the contained methods. typeScope always goes up except for ScopingEntities. These
methods
have been implemented for each type of entities. It is what we want to avoid with MooseQuery.
Indeed, this semantics of at*Scope is confusing. It was tempting to do it at the time, but since then I basically never used it, so we should discard. And indeed, adding another operator like to*Scope would be both simpler to understand and safer to use.
We will try to do it.
Great.
It is clear that Synectique will soon migrate to this new version and
that
our project of SQL analysis will also use it. Please don’t hesitate to
use
it. MCHttpRepository location: ' http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/AnneEtien/MooseQueryDraft/main' user: '' password: ‘'
We will do as soon as possible a small doc to explain the usage.
Thank you in advance for your answer to our questions.
So, I looked at the code a bit. We should integrate this as soon as possible.
However, first we need to address a couple of issues:
- the traversing of parents like described above
As explained above, we disagree.
- there should be no need for the parentMetaClass: annotation. This is
derived from the parentSelector
- the parentSelector annotation should be moved to the method that
defines
the property. Also, we should prefix it with MSE and I would call it ParentScope. So, something like this: FAMIXType>>container <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container
is
a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^container
We will try to do it now.
Thanks!
Doru
Cheers,
Anne & JC
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Consider that classA inherits from classX which is in packageX. ClassA cannot exist without classX, but still you do not want this in the list of dependencies. I think the same should apply to your case.
On the other hand, I think that we could still keep your behavior and when we only want packageC, we could say:
*classA queryOutgoingInvocation atMethodScope atPackageScope ==> packageC*
I did not try. Would that be correct?
We tried and as expected it answers pckgB and pckgC. We plan to keep this behaviour as the default one and to add another filter to obtain only pckgC.
Anne & JC
So, I looked at the code a bit. We should integrate this as soon as possible.
However, first we need to address a couple of issues:
- the traversing of parents like described above
As explained above, we disagree.
- there should be no need for the parentMetaClass: annotation. This is
derived from the parentSelector
- the parentSelector annotation should be moved to the method that defines
the property. Also, we should prefix it with MSE and I would call it ParentScope. So, something like this: FAMIXType>>container <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^container
We have just tried to do it. However it is not possible to move parentSelector annotation to the method that defines the property. Indeed, for example FAMIXClass and FAMIXMethod have two parentSelector among which parentPackage that is inherited from FAMIXNamedEntity. For the other classes inheriting from FAMIXNamedEntity parentPackage is not a parentSelector. Therefore it is not possible to put the annotations on the method itself.
Nevertheless, we will remove parentMetaClass annotation as you suggested.
Anne & JC
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jean-Christophe Bach < jeanchristophe.bach@inria.fr> wrote:
So, I looked at the code a bit. We should integrate this as soon as possible.
However, first we need to address a couple of issues:
- the traversing of parents like described above
As explained above, we disagree.
- there should be no need for the parentMetaClass: annotation. This
is
derived from the parentSelector
- the parentSelector annotation should be moved to the method that
defines
the property. Also, we should prefix it with MSE and I would call it ParentScope. So, something like this: FAMIXType>>container <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to.
Container is
a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^container
We have just tried to do it. However it is not possible to move parentSelector annotation to the method that defines the property. Indeed, for example FAMIXClass and FAMIXMethod have two parentSelector among which parentPackage that is inherited from FAMIXNamedEntity. For the other classes inheriting from FAMIXNamedEntity parentPackage is not a parentSelector. Therefore it is not possible to put the annotations on the method itself.
We have to find a solution because I do not want to rely on strings :).
How about overriding the definition of parentPackage in FAMIXMethod?
FAMIXMethod>>parentPackage "Package containing the entity in the code structure (if applicable)" <MSEProperty: #parentPackage type: #FAMIXPackage opposite: #childNamedEntities> <MSEComment: 'Package containing the entity in the code structure (if applicable)'> *<MSEParentScope>* ^parentPackage
This would work I think.
The other question is why would we not allow the other subclasses to also have a parentPackage as parent?
Nevertheless, we will remove parentMetaClass annotation as you suggested.
Ok.
Doru
Anne & JC
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 30-07-15 17:03, Jean-Christophe Bach wrote:
We have to find a solution because I do not want to rely on strings :).
How about overriding the definition of parentPackage in FAMIXMethod?
Perhaps a better solution would be to remove parentPackage from FAMIXNamedEntity and to put it into FAMIXClass and FAMIXMethod.
There are a lot of languages that allow other nesting structures.
Stephan
Le 30 juil. 2015 à 17:29, stephan stephan@stack.nl a écrit :
On 30-07-15 17:03, Jean-Christophe Bach wrote:
We have to find a solution because I do not want to rely on strings :).
How about overriding the definition of parentPackage in FAMIXMethod?
Perhaps a better solution would be to remove parentPackage from FAMIXNamedEntity and to put it into FAMIXClass and FAMIXMethod.
There are a lot of languages that allow other nesting structures.
I am not sure to right understand your remark. It is because the concept of Package does not exist in any language that we suggested to move down parentPackage from FAMIXNamedEntity where it is now to FAMIXClass and FAMIXMethod (since anyway, it is for these two concepts only that the importers put values). Moreover, the existence of other nesting structures is not a problem for the new API. For this new API, you have to specify, currently in the annotation class method of each FAMIXNamedEntity, what is its parent selectors. The atScope: method (and now also the toScope:) relies on this pragma. Finally, if a function functionA is nested into another functionB, the following query: functionA atScope: FAMIXFunction ==> functionA since it is already a function.
One of the numerous reasons we initially developed MooseQuery was that I have a project of SQL code analysis for which none of the existing MooseChef query worked. With MooseQuery, you just have to add pragmas of the parent selectors and you can use all the power of the requests.
Anne
Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 29-07-15 16:14, Anne Etien wrote:
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
What exactly is atClassScope (or atTypeScope)? In FAMIX, a class is not a scoping entity. That only refers to global scopes. In other languages there are nested functions and methods.
Stephan
* stephan stephan@stack.nl [30.07.2015. @15:20:48 +0200]:
On 29-07-15 16:14, Anne Etien wrote:
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atClassScope atPackageScope
- classA queryOutgoingInvocation atPackageScope
What exactly is atClassScope (or atTypeScope)? In FAMIX, a class is not a scoping entity. That only refers to global scopes. In other languages there are nested functions and methods.
You are right: it is atTypeScope and not atClassScope. The name of the selector is perhaps not correct but the idea is to navigate through the containment tree and to give an answer filtered at the right level. We could perhaps replace scope by level in the name of the selector.
Anne & JC
-
Anne Etien -
Jean-Christophe Bach -
stephan -
Tudor Girba