Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: no top-level lamdba package in generated PHI programs #3129

Open
deemp opened this issue Apr 22, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Fix: no top-level lamdba package in generated PHI programs #3129

deemp opened this issue Apr 22, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@deemp
Copy link
Member

deemp commented Apr 22, 2024

Problem

When a formation has a λ ⤍ Package, the normalizer dataizes formations in sibling bindings.
Otherwise, the normalizer doesn't dataize formations in sibling bindings.
However, there's no top-level λ ⤍ Package binding in generated PHI programs.

pipeline/phi/as-phi-tests.phi (see this artefact):

{
  ⟦
    org ↦ ⟦
      eolang ↦ ⟦
         ...
      ⟧,
      λ ⤍ Package
    ⟧
  ⟧
}

Suggestion

Make eoc optionally keep the information about tests.
That is, both eoc phi and eoc unphi should have a --tests flag.

For eoc phi --tests, write a λ ⤍ Test binding in the top-level formation.

{
  ⟦
    org ↦ ⟦
      eolang ↦ ⟦
         ...
      ⟧,
      λ ⤍ Package
    ⟧,
    λ ⤍ Test
  ⟧
}

For eoc unphi --tests, handle this binding too.

Copy link

@deemp thanks for the report, here is a feedback:

Problems

  • The bug report's title does not accurately depict the issue. Instead of commencing with 'Fix:', it should succinctly summarize the problem.
  • The report does not provide the steps to reproduce the issue. This element is crucial for any bug report as it enables others to replicate the problem and confirm its existence.
  • The expected behavior and actual result are entangled in the description. They need to be distinctly separated for a clearer understanding.

Suggestions

  • Consider revising the bug report's title to something more descriptive, like "Missing top-level 'Test' lambda package in generated PHI programs". This would give a more immediate and precise idea of the problem.
  • It's important to include a clear, step-by-step process to reproduce the issue. Make sure to include any specific conditions under which the bug occurs. This could look something like:
    • Steps to Reproduce:
  1. Navigate to this artefact
  2. Download and run the program.
  3. Observe the generated PHI programs.
  • Clearly separate sections for expected and actual results will help clarify the issue. For example:
    • Actual Result:
{
⟦
  org ↦ ⟦
    eolang ↦ ⟦
       ...
    ⟧,
    λ ⤍ Package
  ⟧
⟧
}
  • Expected Result:
{
⟦
  org ↦ ⟦
    eolang ↦ ⟦
       ...
    ⟧,
    λ ⤍ Package
  ⟧,
  λ ⤍ Test
⟧
}

This will help anyone reviewing the bug report to quickly understand what the problem is and how it deviates from the expected behavior.

  • Add more context or details about the bug. For instance, you can describe the impact of this bug, or under what circumstances it appears.
  • If possible, include screenshots, logs or any other relevant data that could help in identifying the issue. This could be a screenshot of an error message or a snippet of a log file where an error may have been recorded.

Please fix the bug report in order it to get resolved faster.
Analyzed with gpt-4

@maxonfjvipon
Copy link
Member

@yegor256 @deemp why do we need this? Does not this help?

@deemp
Copy link
Member Author

deemp commented Apr 26, 2024

@maxonfjvipon, I updated the issue description

@yegor256
Copy link
Member

@deemp in general, it's better to submit a new issue instead of editing description/title of existing one -- this will help us keep discussions more concise.

@deemp
Copy link
Member Author

deemp commented Apr 27, 2024

@yegor256, sure. However, there's no discussion in this issue apart from the current meta-discussion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants