-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 787
Refactor expression runner so it can be used via the C and JS APIs #2702
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
30 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
132cb1d
Derive standalone expression runner from precompute pass
dcodeIO bbe1dc5
handle traps, format
dcodeIO 3f3c02d
fix?
dcodeIO 461576d
update tests
dcodeIO f5e3837
refactor replaceExpresion to an enum
dcodeIO 2ccc81d
fix expressions[0] in tracing, track temporary local values
dcodeIO 30bd10c
simplify
dcodeIO ca3ed47
implement preset local/global values
dcodeIO a853db9
could need some format on save
dcodeIO 66d23f1
address comments
dcodeIO 35d09c2
more documentation for getValues
dcodeIO f57cbdc
refactor runner to its own cpp file
dcodeIO 63d7520
traverse into simple functions
dcodeIO 5432156
deal with non-determinism
dcodeIO ec0a93d
update API, add test
dcodeIO 1ceb5b5
retrigger CI
dcodeIO d145cfc
fix comment
dcodeIO 153d10f
address review comments
dcodeIO 7d51f30
address review comments
dcodeIO cabf038
Merge branch 'master' into expressionrunner
dcodeIO ed62e30
refactor
dcodeIO 803cd22
reuse existing runner
dcodeIO 597c5fa
revert trap on invalid
dcodeIO b4ca977
address comments
dcodeIO dcbab6a
address comments
dcodeIO 4c8fc7c
address (most) comments
dcodeIO 8586c57
mention interaction between TraverseCalls and PreserveSideEffects
dcodeIO 1184f58
Merge branch 'master' into expressionrunner
dcodeIO 17e5de0
address comments
dcodeIO 84c27ac
Merge branch 'master' into expressionrunner
dcodeIO File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the runner fails, it seems like it would be useful to expose more information to the caller about why it failed. That way the user could choose to increase the depth or loop count, if applicable. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, good question. Seems like this might be a bit too much, considering how it complicates the API. For instance, on the AssemblyScript side I expect to always use a reasonable
maxDepth
(or none) and give up otherwise as there is no reason to make an exception using larger limits. Would have used that limit right away then.