2016-04-06 15:25 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>:
Hi Nicolai,
On 06 Apr 2016, at 14:56, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-04-06 14:27 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>: Fix for review:
=== Name: STON-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.71 Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe Time: 6 April 2016, 2:22:24.782251 pm UUID: 64b8b741-365e-41fe-aa98-565e33ca5d24 Ancestors: STON-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.70
Fix a bug where STONReferences occurring as keys in Dictionaries or elements in Sets caused those to be unhealthy after materialization. Thx to Peter Uhnák for reporting this issue.
Add 3 new unit tests to STONReaderTests
#testDictionaryWithReferenceKeys #testSetWithReferenceElements #testDeepStructure
Fix Details
change the implementation of STONReader>>#processSubObjectsOf: from iterative to recursive (see version 39 of 29 November 2012, this might be a functional regression, see #testDeepStructure; cleanup of stack instance variable for later) so that #stonProcessSubObjects: can be overwritten with code being executed before or after full reference resolution
imho, recursion stack depth will be equal during both writing and reading, and should be acceptable.
overwrite #stonProcessSubObjects: in Dictionary and Set to #rehash at the end, but only when needed (minimal optimalization, see Dictionary>>#containsStonReferenceAsKey and Set>>#containsStonReference) === Name: STON-Tests-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe Time: 6 April 2016, 2:22:45.01986 pm UUID: 0beb2322-b81a-46ee-a0e2-6648a808774a Ancestors: STON-Tests-SvenVanCaekenberghe.62
(idem) ===
Thanks for looking at the code.
Hi Sven, instead of rehashing the dictionary for every ston reference,
(It rehashes only once after resolving all references)
Ah, of course. I thought this would be called for every ston reference used as key.
wouldn't it work to remove and readd the value after processing the subobject:
Dictionary>>#stonProcessSubObjects: block self keys do:[:key | |value| value := block value:(self removeKey: key ifAbsent:[ nil]). self at: (block value: key) put: value].
Interesting idea. I have to think about that approach.
Now, Object>>#stonProcessSubObjects: is very general and looks at named and indexed instance variables. But this probably could be replaced by something more high level and specific I guess.
Adding and removing each key/value has a cost too. I try to make the simplest case very efficient and only pay a price when really needed. Anyway, time for some calculations.
ok, yes running over all keys isn't better than rehashing :-)
Thanks again for the suggestion !
Sven
On 06 Apr 2016, at 14:04, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17946/STON-materializes-unhealthy-Dictiona...
fix coming
On 05 Apr 2016, at 13:11, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 05 Apr 2016, at 13:02, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>
wrote:
2016-04-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Cyril Ferlicot Delbecque <
cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com>:
On 05/04/2016 12:09, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Like I said, it is a hashing issue, sometimes it will be correct by
accident.
I hope you did not have to much trouble with this bug, I guess it
must have been hard to chase.
Is it urgent ?
I probably can give you a quick fix, but I would like to think a
bit more about this, since rehashing each materialised dictionary seems expensive.
Hi Sven,
I got the same kind of problem in a personal application.
I use Sets that I serialize and I had a lot of trouble because sometimes some action had strange behaviours.
For example in a set with element `aSet remove: aSet anyOne` raised 'XXX not found in aSet'.
I am glad to hear that it is a Ston issue and not me that used sets in a bad way :)
For me too it is not urgent since I have a not of university work for the moment.
How are hashed collections created/filled during ston-parsing ? If the position in a hashed collection is created by a ston-reference, that is later replaced by the "real" object, the index in the dictionary (or other hashed collections) may be wrong.
Yes, that is indeed it, Nicolai.
But I would like to try to minimise the rehashing as it seems expensive. But first I need a more reliable failure.
-- Cyril Ferlicot
165 Avenue Bretagne Lille 59000 France