Hi Enrico,
ok. Does that mean that the temporary domain for a variable A should
be reset whenever a variable B that restricts the domain of A gets
unlocked?
I noticed also that resetVariables() is called in
ApplicationCondition.eval(). So that means whenever we check whether
a found match for a NAC is valid, we reset the variables and delete
all temporary domains? Why are the domain slots cleared at this
point and should the temporary domains really be reset here?
Cheers,
Christian
On 06/11/2012 07:44 AM, Enrico Biermann wrote:
Hi,
Assume a lhs with B->A.
If a variable is not initialized its domain is initialized by all
possible values for its type, e.g. a graph has 5 nodes of type A,
so the domain is set to 5. In the above example when matching B,
the domain of a A has to be restricted too (to all outgoing edges
from the fixed node B in the graph to A nodes). This information
is stored in the temporary domain. If the temporary domain of A is
already set when the domain is initialized. The status of the
temporary domain is used instead of the type constraint to set the
domain.
This has other consequences, too. For example if 2 different
constraints to A restrict the temporary domain to empty, you can
immediatly start to backtrack because you will never be able to
initialize the domain of A.
Cheers,
Enrico
On 10.06.2012 21:01, Christian Krause wrote:
Hi,
I guess then we have to figure out when exactly the
temporaryDomain should be cleared and when not (or how to fix it
otherwise). Enrico: if I understand it correctly, the
temporaryDomain is used to restrict the domain further when some
of the variables have been matched already (?). Initially, I
thought the temporaryDomain is just used for performance
reasons, but that seems not to be the case. Can you tell us a
bit about its purpose?
cheers,
Christian
On 06/10/2012 02:18 PM, Stefan Jurack wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
|