DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments #9528

ColinDayOrg · 2019-02-28T14:56:48Z

Purpose

This PR addresses issues that were found when deleting code blocks that contain function definitions that have default arguments.

Declarations

Check these if you believe they are true

The code base is in a better state after this PR
Is documented according to the standards
The level of testing this PR includes is appropriate
User facing strings, if any, are extracted into *.resx files
All tests pass using the self-service CI.
Snapshot of UI changes, if any.
Changes to the API follow Semantic Versioning, and are documented in the API Changes document.

Reviewers

@mjkkirschner
@aparajit-pratap

FYIs

…arameters

… DYN-1541

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-20T01:13:22Z

@ColinDayOrg should this still be marked WIP / DNM? Is it ready for review?

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-20T22:55:51Z

src/Engine/ProtoCore/DSASM/Executable.cs

@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ public class CodeBlock
        /// <param name="procTable"></param>
        /// <param name="isBreakableBlock"></param>
        /// <param name="core"></param>
-        public CodeBlock(Guid guid, CodeBlockType type, ProtoCore.Language langId, int cbID, SymbolTable symbols, ProcedureTable procTable, bool isBreakableBlock = false, ProtoCore.Core core = null)
+        public CodeBlock(Guid guid, CodeBlockType type, ProtoCore.Language langId, int cbID, SymbolTable symbols, ProcedureTable procTable, bool isBreakableBlock, ProtoCore.Core core)


this is a breaking change.

ok, you are correct, I will revert it. However, these default arguments are used in the code without being checked for being null. It looks like the code has been this way for a while, not sure what you would like to happen here (other than no changes).

ColinDayOrg · 2019-03-21T12:56:12Z

test/DynamoCoreTests/CodeBlockNodeTests.cs

@@ -212,6 +212,127 @@ public void TestStatement_ArrayReference()
 #endif
        protected double tolerance = 1e-4;

+        // Note: This test fails, even though the individual items pass as separate tests


This code is here to show an issue with the testing system, it can be removed if desired, not sure what the policy is for this.

what is the failure mode here?

The failure mode is that the second test fails even though if the two tests are run in separate test runs they both pass.

If you look at TestFunctionDefaultParameters versus the following TestFunctionSingleDefaultParameter and TestFunctionTwoDefaultParameters you can see that the tests are the same, yet if they are concatenated into one test the test will fail. I did not really look into why, I was just notating that there is potentially an issue with the testing system there that may trip up other people in the future.

hmm - the difference between running these in a single test and and in multiple tests is that Dynamo is being shut down and new workspaces are being opened in the new tests... that could be a problem with the testing system or it could be a real bug...

when you interact manually with Dynamo you cannot reproduce this failure?

To memorialize our recent Zoom conversation, each test passes separately, but putting them both in the same test case fails. Put another way, I can reproduce both issues manually, but in the testing framework having both tests run together fails. I would guess at this point that it is an issue with the testing framework and not Dynamo, but this is just a guess at this point. The main thought was just to get it notated so that other people may avoid some future pain, I'm not sure how much of importance this particular issue has for the everyday user.

ColinDayOrg · 2019-03-21T13:35:37Z

test/DynamoCoreTests/CodeBlockNodeTests.cs

+            AssertPreviewValue(codeBlockNode2.GUID.ToString(), 6);
+        }
+
+        // Note: DYN-1684 - This test is expected to fail due to the functions being indeterminate


This test is here for notating the issue of code blocks with duplicate function names. It is not really part of this issue and can be removed if desired, but I left it in to memorialize the issue for the future. Note that once this duplicate name issue is addressed this test will not be an accurate description of the functionality and will need to be changed or removed.

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-21T14:20:30Z

@ColinDayOrg I don't think @aparajit-pratap will be able to review further, would you mind pinging another reviewer to check this out - I will also review.

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-21T17:32:15Z

src/Engine/ProtoAssociative/CodeGen.cs

+                List<GraphNode> trueBodyNodes = core.InlineConditionalBodyGraphNodes.Pop();
+
+                // Append dependent nodes of the inline conditional 
+                foreach (GraphNode gnode in trueBodyNodes)


find this style with no braces kind of difficult to read / prone to future errors - what do you think?

I actually find the requirement to have the extra braces unnecessary and creates code that is more unreadable (mostly due to adding unnecessary code and code lines), but the bracing wars is a long running issue across multiple companies, I really have no dog in this race. That being said, these changes were made by Aparajit, I can change them however you would like.

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-21T17:35:21Z

test/DynamoCoreWpfTests/CodeBlockNodeTests.cs

+        {
+            RunCommandsFromFile("DeleteCrashCommands.xml", (commandTag) =>
+            {
+                // NOTE: Nothing needs to be tested here other than that this test does not crash


does this need to be wrapped in an assert does not throw?

This is probably true, I will add this

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-21T17:36:13Z

@ColinDayOrg there are a lot of formatting changes here - can you sum up what the spirit of this code change is?

QilongTang · 2019-03-21T17:52:55Z

Same for me, pretty hard to understand this and I am thinking about debugging myself to understand the intention better

ColinDayOrg · 2019-03-21T18:05:07Z

After debugging and determining what the cause of the issue was; basically if there is a default argument in a function statement in a code block, when the code block is deleted there is a child code block (code block on the VM level, not a code block node) that gets deleted, which causes the indexing to get out of sync leading to an assertion failing which causes the VM crash. My original solution was to not delete code blocks that were created due to a default argument, but after suggesting this Aparajit said that it was probably better to not add the child code blocks in the first place. This is where most of these code changes came from, I would be happy to elaborate or have a further conversation if it would be helpful.

alfarok · 2019-03-22T19:02:56Z

Hey @ColinDayOrg can you provide a sample of how to reproduce the crash that is now addressed? I am looking at the associated Jira task DYN-1541 and am still a bit confused. In the description the following sample is provided:

def foo(x, y = 1, z = 2)
{
    return = x + y + z;
};
foo(2); // returns null instead of 5

Mocking this locally (without these changes) I get a result of 4 not null or 5. This may not be the issue that is being addressed but I am trying to better understand what is addressed in this PR vs what the task outlines.

alfarok · 2019-03-25T13:36:38Z

@ColinDayOrg Thanks for the detailed explanation of the issue on Friday. I was able to reproduce the VM crash locally and can verify it is no longer occurring with these changes. I beat around on it a bit with operations such as undo/redo with no further issues. As we discussed last week it would be good to get this merged into 2.3 if the team is okay, keeping an eye out for any strange behavior as it gets heavier usage since these changes run pretty deep.

mjkkirschner · 2019-03-25T20:18:14Z

@ColinDayOrg after you file the followup for the test LGTM.

ColinDayOrg · 2019-03-26T14:14:04Z

The test issue has been filed as DYN-1763

ColinDayOrg added 27 commits March 23, 2018 11:37

Update changes from librarie.js to fix QNTM-3710

56dbd73

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

eec64b9

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

4362151

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

75643c7

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

6a07e6c

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

38b8461

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

44a00a8

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

5c04a06

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

a21fd6a

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

4235133

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

302b9dd

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

6bf5548

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

8d4511b

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

8f9df0f

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

e91ef30

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

82373cc

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

1434ba0

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

706974c

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

760ae95

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

6ffd883

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/DynamoDS/Dynamo

5b1c073

Add some initial default argument tests

30f81af

Add one argument one default test

ccc23ef

Comment out a purposely failing test

bab2f92

Test multiple code blocks with default arguments

75e430a

Add a (commented out) test that fails due to indeterminate functions

0bf25b4

Add tests for deleting code block nodes with functions with default p…

4e7ed90

…arameters

ColinDayOrg requested review from mjkkirschner and aparajit-pratap February 28, 2019 14:56

Remove deafult arguments to avoid a potential crash

e64b640

ColinDayOrg and others added 5 commits March 9, 2019 06:17

Comment out code block deletion for testing

072af66

Uncomment test code

e4ae2c6

remove emitting if statement node for associative inline conditionals

c06d338

obsolete property

396e51d

Merge branch 'DYN-1541' of https://github.com/ColinDayOrg/Dynamo into…

1e81689

… DYN-1541

mjkkirschner reviewed Mar 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

ColinDayOrg added 2 commits March 21, 2019 08:48

Add recordable test for node deletion

6ad7073

Restore public signature

3dfe388

ColinDayOrg changed the title ~~[WIP/DNM] DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments~~ DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

ColinDayOrg added 3 commits March 21, 2019 09:28

Remove obsolete test and update comment

fb22dd2

Use correct issue name in comment

042ec65

Fix typo

57f2193

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

mjkkirschner reviewed Mar 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

ColinDayOrg requested review from alfarok and removed request for aparajit-pratap March 21, 2019 17:40

mjkkirschner added the LGTM Looks good to me label Mar 25, 2019

ColinDayOrg merged commit 30e14a1 into DynamoDS:master Mar 26, 2019

aparajit-pratap mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2019

Clear Tech Debt: Remove IfStatementNode from Associative lang #9644

Merged

7 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments #9528

DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments #9528

ColinDayOrg commented Feb 28, 2019 •

edited

Loading

mjkkirschner commented Mar 20, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 20, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner commented Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg Mar 21, 2019

mjkkirschner commented Mar 21, 2019

QilongTang commented Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 21, 2019

alfarok commented Mar 22, 2019

alfarok commented Mar 25, 2019

mjkkirschner commented Mar 25, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 26, 2019

DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments #9528

DYN-1541: Issues with code block function default arguments #9528

Conversation

ColinDayOrg commented Feb 28, 2019 • edited Loading

Purpose

Declarations

Reviewers

FYIs

mjkkirschner commented Mar 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mjkkirschner commented Mar 21, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mjkkirschner commented Mar 21, 2019

QilongTang commented Mar 21, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 21, 2019

alfarok commented Mar 22, 2019

alfarok commented Mar 25, 2019

mjkkirschner commented Mar 25, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Mar 26, 2019

ColinDayOrg commented Feb 28, 2019 •

edited

Loading