Hi,
I looked into the Java2StateMachine example. It seems like one
Transition with action="" and trigger="FIN" is not generated and
some of the transitions are not correctly wired up. Are we sure the
reference model is correct?
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/09/2012 11:35 AM, Enrico Biermann wrote:
Hi,
I found the bug. The temporary domain of a domain slot was not
reset after a failed match attampt.
So the scenario was the following:
1) LHS matched
2) NAC did not match, but the temporary domain of the forbidden
node still contained an element
3) LHS matched again
4) When checking whether a specific edge would still be possible,
a reference constraint failed because the old temporary domain did
not contain possible target values for the reference.
I attached a patch. However if you apply it, one of the tests
(testJava2StateMachine) will fail. Still, I think that not
resetting the temporary domain is a bug and possibly the test is
in error in this case.
Cheers,
Enrico
On 09.06.2012 11:06, Enrico Biermann wrote:
Hi,
I debugged the example.
The error occurs when trying to match a "ver" edge. Based on the
fact that the target domain slot is not initialized I guess that
it is the edge from the top right node to the bottom right
forbidden node (in the diagram file).
The reason that the NAC does not match is because the domain of
the forbidden node is empty. I don't know yet why but I will see
if I can find out.
Cheers,
Enrico
On 08.06.2012 14:21, Christian Krause wrote:
I created a minimal example of the error. Copy the two files
into the 'combpattern' package and run it. It should not find
a match. The graph has this structure:
o---o
| |
o---o
| |
o---o
On 06/08/2012 02:05 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi Enrico,
I still don't know where the problem is. I know exactly when
and where it happens (step #7) but I don't know why. No
match for the NAC is found. The graph is correct at this
point and the rule is also fine as far as I can tell. The
debugging is really difficult. I did not really understand
what you meant by making a rule for each constraint type.
Can you maybe give me some more hints how to debug this?
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/03/2012 11:06 AM, Enrico Biermann wrote:
Hi,
true, the optimization is not the problem, however it
probably uncovered a bug in the constraints. you could
make a rule for each constraint type present in the
application condition of addNewColumn and then switching
the order of variables (a nice side benefit is that these
rules would also make great unit tests).
At least one variable order of one rule should fail to
match.
Regards,
Enrico
On 03.06.2012 10:53, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi,
I couldn't find a bug in the example. The optimization
is not the problem. I changed the order of the nodes in
the NAC and now I get the error with and without the
optimization.
From the log I can see that the NAC was not correctly
checked. There does exist an object and two edge, so the
rule should not be applicable to this match. The
interpreter prints waring now that edges are deleted due
to a side effect. I still don't know why the match
finder has a problem.
Cheers
Christian
On 06/03/2012 10:38 AM, Enrico Biermann wrote:
Hi,
The order of variables should be irrelevant (for
correct results).
If it is not, then it points to either a missing
constraint or an incorrect handling of either
initialized or uninitialized domain slots for an
existing constraint.
The order of nodes for the application condition of
addNewColumn was changed from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (order of
creation) to 3, 1, 4, 5, 2. So a constraint of 3, 4 or
5 should be responsible, but someone with knowledge of
the example should continue with the analysis.
Regards,
Enrico
On 02.06.2012 18:07, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi,
if you want to see why the optimization is
important: check out the latest version of the
examples and run the STSBenchmark with and without
the optimization (order of magnitude faster with
optimization).
Enrico: does the MatchFinder assume any particular
order of the variables in the value lists returned
by ruleInfo.getVariableInfo().getGraph2variables() ?
All I was doing is to sort the lists.
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/02/2012 11:06 AM, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi,
I added the examples to the SVN. My last
optimization causes the comp-example to fail. I
commented out the optimization in line 342 of
EngineImpl therefore. So for now it works, but we
should try to fix it so that the optimization can
be used. It seems like the NAC of addNewColumn is
not properly checked when the optimization is used
(nodes are added in every rule application for the
same match).
I turned on the logging. So if you want to try it
out, do this:
1) run CombBenchmarkManyMatches (works)
2) comment line 343 and uncomment 344-350 in
EngineImpl and execute it again (will not stop).
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/02/2012 10:06 AM, Dmitry Zakharov wrote:
Hi Christian,
I am giving you the short summery of all test
cases. With red I highlight those where hanshin
is slower.
1) STS: Henshin is faster
2) LTS:
Henshin
StoryDiagram
N=20 R=10000 50541 ms 76562
ms
N=500 R=1 120765 ms 21505
ms
3) ALAP:
Henshin and SD have time same time
Nodes HENSHIN StoryDiagram
1000 468 ms 571 ms
5000 6973 ms 6751 ms
10000 29319 ms 30936 ms
4) Program Understanding : Henshin
is faster
5) Comb Many-Matches
Henshin Story
Diagram
Grid 50, pattern size 10 (2009
matches) 48725
1098 ms
Grid 50, pattern size 50 (49
matches) 46747 748
ms
6) Comb No-Match
Henshin Story Diagram
Grid 200, pattern 10 38551 ms
1478 ms
Grid 200, pattern 50 54934 ms
3109 ms
regards, dmitry
on 02.06.2012 9:19, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
I have one more request: could you briefly summarize where Henshin was
slower than SD and also give us a hint how much slower it was? This
would be very helpful for the profiling and optimization.
Cheers,
Christian
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
|