Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    x4lldux
    @x4lldux
    *calls to those things
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    yep. exactly.
    So, I would go for experimental instrumentation as part of the next release, and then we follow with better support for concurrency in the later release(s).
    x4lldux
    @x4lldux

    So there is indication that e.g. var8 is always set after var2 because Process 2 could be faster than Process 1.

    this isn't clearly present even in this version:

    Sequential step: 
    var1 = DSL.cache(10, 1)
    var2 = DSL.cache(8, -2)
    
    Parallel step: 
      +------------P0-------------+      +-----------P1-----------+    
      | var3 = DSL.cache(-18, -2) |      | var5 = DSL.cache(8, 3) |    
      | var4 = DSL.find(-2)       |      | var6 = DSL.cache(0, 0) |    
      +---------------------------+      | var7 = DSL.flush()     |    
                                         +------------------------+
    all of P1 commands can be started and finished when P0 executes DSL.cache from var3... so there's no good way to visualize this
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Yes, I recognised it during the writing. And that is something we need to document, otherwise people will be very irritated.
    x4lldux
    @x4lldux
    yup
    ok. it's night-night for me. see ya
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    me too! Good night!
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Folks, do we need more for PR #157 ? Otherwise I would merge. My next plans are provide a buggy concurrent algorithm or to analyse the Registry. In addition to that I would like to start a better reporting facility for parallel processes by evaluating traces.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    I think merging is fine, that should be a good starting ground for new tests.
    Alas, I am a bit swamped with work right now, so I can't review a lot currently :-/
    Magnus
    @evnu
    alfert/propcheck#165 I really like that idea! :)
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    yes, it is a good idea and the implementation thought also about problems of shadowing variables and stuff like that. That shows some seniority with compiling / interpreting computer languages.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    Should the new libgraph dep be runtime: false? It might only be needed during compilation. Can't check right now, only on mobile.
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Hmm, it is only required during the test phase, i.e. it will not be part of our client's dependencies. Runtime false would mean what exactly?
    Marking a dependency runtime: false will not start it as part of the application supervision tree when your main application is started.
    Probably doesn't make a difference, I guess libgraph does not have a supervisor tree
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    No, it doesn't have a supervisor tree, so it is not important.
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    @evnu , @x4lldux I do a nasty git operation, due to the unlucky merge operation of Alex for his let-chaining branch. I create a new branch, cherry-picked all commits and publish the old master as the new and create a new PR. Keep your fingers crossed and please don't do anything with the repo.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    :+1:
    sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
    And it worked out well.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    Maybe someone here has a little bit of input for this: I sometimes find a failing counter example on CI; I can then download the counter examples and fix the problem. It happens that I realize only after that I should add a specific regression test with the example I just fixed, but the list of counter examples is already clear. So, to get the example again, I download the file from CI again and make the test fail, to copy the example from the output. I think it would be nice to allow listing the counter examples on the command line instead. For example, mix propcheck.list_counter_examples What do you think?
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Did you tried mix propcheck.inspect?
    Perhaps a better would be helpful
    Magnus
    @evnu
    Ah, I didn't know/remember that option. Will check it out next week.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    @alfert thanks, propcheck.inspect looks good!
    Magnus
    @evnu
    It seems that proper's development has slowed down a bit again. A new release of propcheck would be nice, though.
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    @evnu Good point, semester holidays are over, obviously. I was absorbed with job related stuff in the last weeks. I will try to create a release this week, after that I am on vacation myself. It would be a point release, without too much new/fancy stuff, since the parallelism stuff is still in its early phases - unless you can convince me otherwise ...
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    PropCheck 1.2.1 is out
    Magnus
    @evnu
    hey, I am offline a lot right now as well (holiday season). Thanks for the release!
    Magnus
    @evnu
    @alfert As Elixir v1.5 is no longer supported, maybe :poison should no longer be a direct dependency of PropCheck. From git blame, it was introduced as a direct dependency to work around a travis issue for Elixir v1.5? (1e41ce4b)
    Magnus
    @evnu
    @alfert would be nice to have a release soonish to get rid of the __STACKTRACE__ warnigns
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    @evnu I thought about a minor release to move forward to Elixir 1.7 and above. That would eliminate the __STACKTRACE__ warning but does not too well under OTP 23. Removing that :poison issue is a good idea.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    I don't understand yet what the issue with OTP 23 is; I have been running OTP 23 with PropCheck for quite some time without any issues
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Hmm, I should give it a try. I was commenting on #180 but until now I am somewhat behind Elixir and Erlang versions.
    PropCheck 1.3.0 is released now.
    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    @evnu do you have an idea why the Github Actions are ok under Checks Tab but seem to be doubled at the Conversation Tab with the half of them failing? And what to do against it? I am completely puzzled.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    @alfert where should I look?

    PropCheck 1.3.0 is released now.

    thx!

    Klaus Alfert
    @alfert
    Sorry, I am just recognising your answer. But just take any recent pull request. It says six or seven checks which run through and 9 other things which don't work. But these 9 are nowhere defined, at least I do not know where. But they prevent merging of PRs without administrative override. That is not deal breaker but very annoying.
    Magnus
    @evnu
    ok, got it. I'll try to debug it. don't mind the draft PR for now, I need a test vehicle..
    alfert/propcheck#183 I removed all jobs except for a dummy; no job was run at all, the zombie jobs still exist
    You can remove the outdated check in the protected branch settings of the repository settings.
    @alfert if this is not the issue, I can try to debug this further.