chore: moved equivalence testing to Binding

[arendjr]

Moved are_bindings_equivalent() to Binding::is_equivalent_to().

Also created a little Binding::as_constant() helper in alignment with as_filename() and as_node().

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Improved the internal logic for binding equivalence checks, enhancing clarity and maintainability.
  • Updated method calls related to binding equivalence to use a more encapsulated approach.
• Chores
  • Cleaned up import statements in the pattern accessor logic for better code organization.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The recent update brings a focus on enhancing the internal structure and accessibility of the codebase. Key modifications include making the singleton method in binding.rs internal to the crate and introducing an as_constant method for better handling of constant bindings. Additionally, the equivalence checking mechanism within bindings and nodes has been refined for better clarity and efficiency, alongside minor cleanup in import statements and updating method calls to reflect these changes.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
.../src/binding.rs	Changed singleton visibility to pub(crate), added as_constant method.
.../src/equivalence.rs	Restructured equivalence checks into Binding struct, refactoring and revising logic for clarity.
.../src/pattern/accessor.rs, .../src/pattern/variable.rs	Updated method calls from are_bindings_equivalent to is_equivalent_to, reordered and cleaned up imports.

🐰✨
In the land of code, where changes abound,
A rabbit hopped, leaving marks on the ground.
"To improve, to refine," it whispered with glee,
As it tweaked and it polished, as happy as can be.
With each hop and each leap, the code did transform,
Now clearer, more robust, far from the norm.
"Onward!" it cheered, with a twinkle in its eye,
"To better paths, under the vast, code-filled sky."
🌟🐾

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit-tests for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8921c59 and 963c30b.

Files selected for processing (4)

• crates/core/src/binding.rs (2 hunks)
• crates/core/src/equivalence.rs (1 hunks)
• crates/core/src/pattern/accessor.rs (3 hunks)
• crates/core/src/pattern/variable.rs (2 hunks)

Additional comments: 6

crates/core/src/equivalence.rs (2)

• 5-58: The is_equivalent_to method within the Binding struct is a significant addition, encapsulating the logic for checking equivalence between bindings. A few observations and suggestions:

1. The method's documentation is clear and concise, effectively explaining the purpose and behavior of the method.
2. The use of singleton() to handle simple cases is efficient, but ensure that the singleton method is correctly implemented and handles all expected cases.
3. The match arms for different types of bindings (e.g., Node, String, List, etc.) are comprehensive. However, it's crucial to ensure that these comparisons are accurate and cover all necessary scenarios.
4. The method does not handle the Empty variant explicitly in its match arms. If this is intentional and Empty bindings should always return false when compared, consider documenting this behavior for clarity.
5. Performance considerations: The method may involve multiple tree traversals, especially for List bindings. If performance becomes a concern, consider optimizing these checks, possibly by caching results or reducing the number of traversals.

Overall, the method is well-structured and improves the clarity and maintainability of equivalence checks. Just ensure that all edge cases are handled and performance is monitored.

• 1-78: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [63-103]

The are_equivalent function has been updated to accommodate the new structure for equivalence checks. Here are some points to consider:

1. The early return for identical sources is a good optimization. However, ensure that this check does not inadvertently skip necessary deeper comparisons in cases where the source text is the same, but the structure or semantics differ.
2. The TODO comment about improving performance is valuable. Implementing the suggested improvements, such as precomputing hashes, could significantly enhance the efficiency of equivalence checks. It's recommended to prioritize this if equivalence checks are a bottleneck.
3. The handling of node kinds and named fields is thorough, but the comment about the kind check being wrong highlights a potential area for refinement. Clarifying the intended behavior and ensuring that the implementation correctly handles all cases, including those mentioned in the comment, is crucial.

Consider addressing the TODO items and refining the logic based on the comments to ensure the function's correctness and efficiency.

crates/core/src/pattern/accessor.rs (1)

• 201-201: The update from are_bindings_equivalent to is_equivalent_to aligns with the refactor in the Binding struct. This change enhances readability and encapsulation of equivalence logic. Ensure that all instances where are_bindings_equivalent was previously used have been updated to the new method call to maintain consistency across the codebase.

crates/core/src/pattern/variable.rs (1)

• 140-140: The replacement of are_bindings_equivalent with is_equivalent_to in the variable.rs file is consistent with the refactor introduced in the Binding struct. This change is a good practice as it leverages the new method for checking equivalence directly on the Binding instances, improving the code's readability and maintainability. Ensure that this change is thoroughly tested, especially in scenarios involving complex variable bindings, to confirm that the equivalence logic behaves as expected.

crates/core/src/binding.rs (2)

• 305-305: The visibility change of the singleton method to pub(crate) is not explicitly mentioned in the provided context. However, assuming this change aligns with the refactor's goals and improves encapsulation or usage within the crate, it seems appropriate. Just ensure that this change does not inadvertently restrict access where singleton was needed externally.
• 491-498: The addition of the as_constant method to the Binding struct is a valuable enhancement, providing a straightforward way to retrieve the constant value a binding represents, if applicable. This method complements the existing methods like as_filename() and as_node(), enriching the Binding struct's interface and utility. Ensure that this method is used consistently across the codebase where applicable to leverage its benefits fully.