Hi Nicolai, > On 06 Apr 2016, at 14:56, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2016-04-06 14:27 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: > Fix for review: > > === > Name: STON-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.71 > Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe > Time: 6 April 2016, 2:22:24.782251 pm > UUID: 64b8b741-365e-41fe-aa98-565e33ca5d24 > Ancestors: STON-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.70 > > Fix a bug where STONReferences occurring as keys in Dictionaries or elements > in Sets caused those to be unhealthy after materialization. Thx to Peter > Uhnák for reporting this issue. > > Add 3 new unit tests to STONReaderTests > > #testDictionaryWithReferenceKeys > #testSetWithReferenceElements > #testDeepStructure > > Fix Details > > change the implementation of STONReader>>#processSubObjectsOf: from iterative > to recursive (see version 39 of 29 November 2012, this might be a functional > regression, see #testDeepStructure; cleanup of stack instance variable for > later) so that #stonProcessSubObjects: can be overwritten with code being > executed before or after full reference resolution > > imho, recursion stack depth will be equal during both writing and reading, > and should be acceptable. > > overwrite #stonProcessSubObjects: in Dictionary and Set to #rehash at the > end, but only when needed (minimal optimalization, see > Dictionary>>#containsStonReferenceAsKey and Set>>#containsStonReference) > === > Name: STON-Tests-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 > Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe > Time: 6 April 2016, 2:22:45.01986 pm > UUID: 0beb2322-b81a-46ee-a0e2-6648a808774a > Ancestors: STON-Tests-SvenVanCaekenberghe.62 > > (idem) > ===
Thanks for looking at the code. > Hi Sven, > instead of rehashing the dictionary for every ston reference, (It rehashes only once after resolving all references) > wouldn't it work to remove and readd the value after processing the subobject: > > Dictionary>>#stonProcessSubObjects: block > self keys do:[:key | > |value| > value := block value:(self removeKey: key ifAbsent:[ nil]). > self at: (block value: key) put: value]. Interesting idea. I have to think about that approach. Now, Object>>#stonProcessSubObjects: is very general and looks at named and indexed instance variables. But this probably could be replaced by something more high level and specific I guess. Adding and removing each key/value has a cost too. I try to make the simplest case very efficient and only pay a price when really needed. Anyway, time for some calculations. Thanks again for the suggestion ! Sven > > On 06 Apr 2016, at 14:04, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17946/STON-materializes-unhealthy-Dictionaries-and-Sets-when-references-occur-in-its-keys-or-elements > > > > fix coming > > > >> On 05 Apr 2016, at 13:11, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 05 Apr 2016, at 13:02, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2016-04-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Cyril Ferlicot Delbecque > >>> <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 05/04/2016 12:09, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > >>> > >>>> Like I said, it is a hashing issue, sometimes it will be correct by > >>>> accident. > >>>> > >>>> I hope you did not have to much trouble with this bug, I guess it must > >>>> have been hard to chase. > >>>> > >>>> Is it urgent ? > >>>> > >>>> I probably can give you a quick fix, but I would like to think a bit > >>>> more about this, since rehashing each materialised dictionary seems > >>>> expensive. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Hi Sven, > >>> > >>> I got the same kind of problem in a personal application. > >>> > >>> I use Sets that I serialize and I had a lot of trouble because sometimes > >>> some action had strange behaviours. > >>> > >>> For example in a set with element `aSet remove: aSet anyOne` raised 'XXX > >>> not found in aSet'. > >>> > >>> I am glad to hear that it is a Ston issue and not me that used sets in a > >>> bad way :) > >>> > >>> For me too it is not urgent since I have a not of university work for > >>> the moment. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> How are hashed collections created/filled during ston-parsing ? > >>> If the position in a hashed collection is created by a ston-reference, > >>> that is later replaced by the "real" object, > >>> the index in the dictionary (or other hashed collections) may be wrong. > >> > >> Yes, that is indeed it, Nicolai. > >> > >> But I would like to try to minimise the rehashing as it seems expensive. > >> But first I need a more reliable failure. > >> > >>> -- > >>> Cyril Ferlicot > >>> > >>> http://www.synectique.eu > >>> > >>> 165 Avenue Bretagne > >>> Lille 59000 France > >
