The reference model is correct! It has been published along the
ttc2011 workshop and other approaches led to the same solution too.
Stefan
Am 09.06.2012 15:11, schrieb Christian Krause:
Either the reference model is incorrect, or the bugfix introduced
another bug.
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/09/2012 02:56 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
henshin-dev mailing list
henshin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-dev
|