[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-dev] pointcut diagnosis plug point

About a year ago I started work on a "pointcut reader" that could produce a "plain english" sentence describing what a pointcut expression would match. It's still half-finished on my hard-drive, must polish it off and make it available soon... The second part of that was something that would tell you which join points the pointcut expression matched in a given codebase. The third part was the "explain" feature that for a given pointcut and join point would explain why the pointcut expression matched (or not) The matching algorithm that AspectJ uses is pretty amenable to giving this kind of output because it proceeds logically through the signatures of the join point etc.

A general analyzer mechanism for the "adviceDidNotMatch" message would be harder. adviceDidNotMatch is a result of attempting to match the pointcut at every join point shadow and failing on every occasion. So to explain this, we'd have to output (probably) hundreds of "this pointcut expression did not match join point ... because ... " messages. I think the interface for this one has to be something along the lines of :

explain join point matching for [pointcut-expression] (at join point kind(s) [list of kind])? (within <type-pattern> | withincode <signature-pattern>)?

Which could be supported in some form on the command-line, and integrated into AJDT.

On 3 Oct 2006, at 20:02, Wes wrote:

A user complained that it took a while to figure out why something like

   call(* *(one, two)) && args(one)

wasn't working. It strikes me that there are some pointcuts that can
be statically analyzed for these kinds of errors. For ease of development,
I'd like there to be a way to plug in analyzers and have them invoked on
selected messages (e.g., adviceDidNotMatch). The analyzer would get a
reference to the world/pointcut after simplification and message sink.
Good analyzers could be contributed and incorporated. This might also
be a way to evolve better LTW-specific messages.


Would that be good/hard?
Wes

_______________________________________________
aspectj-dev mailing list
aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev