laria/apfl
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
apfl/src/parser_test.c

1470 lines
58 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
#include <assert.h>
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
#include "apfl.h"
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
#include "resizable.h"
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
#include "alloc.h"
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
#include "test.h"
struct parser_test {
testctx t;
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
struct apfl_allocator allocator;
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
void *source_reader_ctx;
apfl_tokenizer_ptr tokenizer;
apfl_parser_ptr parser;
};
static struct parser_test *
new_parser_test(testctx t, const char *source)
{
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
struct apfl_allocator allocator = test_allocator(t);
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
struct parser_test *pt = must_alloc(t, sizeof(struct parser_test));
pt->t = t;
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
pt->allocator = allocator;
if ((pt->source_reader_ctx = apfl_string_source_reader_new(allocator, apfl_string_view_from(source))) == NULL) {
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
test_fatalf(t, "Failed initializing source reader");
}
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
if ((pt->tokenizer = apfl_tokenizer_new(allocator, apfl_string_source_reader, pt->source_reader_ctx)) == NULL) {
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
test_fatalf(t, "Failed initializing the tokenizer");
}
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
if ((pt->parser = apfl_parser_new(allocator, apfl_tokenizer_as_token_source(pt->tokenizer))) == NULL) {
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
test_fatalf(t, "Failed initializing the parser");
}
return pt;
}
static void
destroy_parser_test(struct parser_test *pt)
{
apfl_parser_destroy(pt->parser);
apfl_tokenizer_destroy(pt->tokenizer);
apfl_string_source_reader_destroy(pt->source_reader_ctx);
free(pt);
}
static void
expect_eof(struct parser_test *pt)
{
switch (apfl_parser_next(pt->parser)) {
case APFL_PARSE_OK:
test_fatalf(pt->t, "Expected EOF but got an expression");
break;
case APFL_PARSE_EOF:
break;
case APFL_PARSE_ERROR:
test_failf(pt->t, "Got an error instead of an EOF");
apfl_error_print(apfl_parser_get_error(pt->parser), stderr);
test_fatal(pt->t);
break;
}
}
static void
expect_expr(struct parser_test *pt, struct apfl_expr expected)
{
struct apfl_expr expr;
switch (apfl_parser_next(pt->parser)) {
case APFL_PARSE_OK:
expr = apfl_parser_get_expr(pt->parser);
if (!apfl_expr_eq(expr, expected)) {
test_failf(pt->t, "Expected expression differs from actual expression");
test_failf(pt->t, "Expected:");
apfl_expr_print(expected, stderr);
test_failf(pt->t, "Have:");
apfl_expr_print(expr, stderr);
}
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
apfl_expr_deinit(pt->allocator, &expr);
apfl_expr_deinit(pt->allocator, &expected);
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
break;
case APFL_PARSE_EOF:
test_fatalf(pt->t, "Extected an expression but got EOF");
break;
case APFL_PARSE_ERROR:
Parser test: Fix error message when encountering an error
2021-12-18 15:09:41 +00:00
test_failf(pt->t, "Got an error instead of an expression");
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
apfl_error_print(apfl_parser_get_error(pt->parser), stderr);
test_fatal(pt->t);
break;
}
}
Add tests for some parsing errors
2021-12-18 23:27:34 +00:00
static void
expect_error_of_type(struct parser_test *pt, enum apfl_error_type want)
{
struct apfl_error have;
switch (apfl_parser_next(pt->parser)) {
case APFL_PARSE_OK:
test_failf(pt->t, "Expected error but got an OK");
break;
case APFL_PARSE_EOF:
test_fatalf(pt->t, "Expected error but got an EOF");
break;
case APFL_PARSE_ERROR:
have = apfl_parser_get_error(pt->parser);
if (have.type != want) {
test_failf(pt->t, "Expected error of type %s, got this error instead:", apfl_error_type_name(want));
apfl_error_print(have, stderr);
}
break;
}
}
Implement mark&sweep garbage collection and bytecode compilation Instead of the previous refcount base garbage collection, we're now using a basic tri-color mark&sweep collector. This is done to support cyclical value relationships in the future (functions can form cycles, all values implemented up to this point can not). The collector maintains a set of roots and a set of objects (grouped into blocks). The GC enabled objects are no longer allocated manually, but will be allocated by the GC. The GC also wraps an allocator, this way the GC knows, if we ran out of memory and will try to get out of this situation by performing a full collection cycle. The tri-color abstraction was chosen for two reasons: - We don't have to maintain a list of objects that need to be marked, we can simply grab the next grey one. - It should allow us to later implement incremental collection (right now we only do a stop-the-world collection). This also switches to a bytecode based evaluation of the code: We no longer directly evaluate the AST, but first compile it into a series of instructions, that are evaluated in a separate step. This was done in preparation for inplementing functions: We only need to turn a function body into instructions instead of evaluating the node again with each call of the function. Also, since an instruction list is implemented as a GC object, this then removes manual memory management of the function body and it's child nodes. Since the GC and the bytecode go hand in hand, this was done in one (giant) commit. As a downside, we've now lost the ability do do list matching on assignments. I've already started to work on implementing this in the new architecture, but left it out of this commit, as it's already quite a large commit :)
2022-04-11 20:24:22 +00:00
static struct apfl_string
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
new_string(struct parser_test *pt, const char *in)
{
Implement mark&sweep garbage collection and bytecode compilation Instead of the previous refcount base garbage collection, we're now using a basic tri-color mark&sweep collector. This is done to support cyclical value relationships in the future (functions can form cycles, all values implemented up to this point can not). The collector maintains a set of roots and a set of objects (grouped into blocks). The GC enabled objects are no longer allocated manually, but will be allocated by the GC. The GC also wraps an allocator, this way the GC knows, if we ran out of memory and will try to get out of this situation by performing a full collection cycle. The tri-color abstraction was chosen for two reasons: - We don't have to maintain a list of objects that need to be marked, we can simply grab the next grey one. - It should allow us to later implement incremental collection (right now we only do a stop-the-world collection). This also switches to a bytecode based evaluation of the code: We no longer directly evaluate the AST, but first compile it into a series of instructions, that are evaluated in a separate step. This was done in preparation for inplementing functions: We only need to turn a function body into instructions instead of evaluating the node again with each call of the function. Also, since an instruction list is implemented as a GC object, this then removes manual memory management of the function body and it's child nodes. Since the GC and the bytecode go hand in hand, this was done in one (giant) commit. As a downside, we've now lost the ability do do list matching on assignments. I've already started to work on implementing this in the new architecture, but left it out of this commit, as it's already quite a large commit :)
2022-04-11 20:24:22 +00:00
struct apfl_string out = apfl_string_blank();
if (!apfl_string_copy(pt->allocator, &out, apfl_string_view_from(in))) {
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
test_fatalf(pt->t, "Failed copying string in new_string");
}
return out;
}
static void *
new_helper(struct parser_test *pt, size_t size, void *data)
{
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
void *out = ALLOC_BYTES(pt->allocator, size);
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
memcpy(out, data, size);
return out;
}
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
static struct apfl_expr_list_item
list_item(bool expand, struct apfl_expr *expr)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_list_item) {
.expand = expand,
.expr = expr,
};
}
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
static struct apfl_expr_assignable_list_item
assignable_list_item(bool expand, struct apfl_expr_assignable assignable)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_assignable_list_item) {
.expand = expand,
.assignable = assignable,
};
}
static struct apfl_expr_params_item
params_item(bool expand, struct apfl_expr_param param)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_params_item) {
.expand = expand,
.param = param,
};
}
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
// Fugly macros to make it a bit easier to create a heap allocated struct value
#define BEGIN_NEW(pt, T) ((T *)new_helper(pt, sizeof(T), &((T)
#define END_NEW )))
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
enum listbuilder_cmd {
LISTBUILDER_ADD,
LISTBUILDER_STOP,
};
#define LISTBUILDER_NAME(n) listbuilder_##n
Parser tests: Make LIST_* macros type safe With the varargs approach that was used before, it was very easy to add a list item of the wrong type, which would (hopefully) result in an assertion violation, because va_arg() then read some senseless data.
2021-12-18 15:34:09 +00:00
#define LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(n) listbuilder_item_##n
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
#define LISTBUILDER_FILL_LIST(pt, itemtype, items, list_items, list_len, cap) \
apfl_resizable_init((void **)&list_items, &list_len, &cap); \
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
\
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
for (items++; items->has_item; items++) { \
if (!apfl_resizable_append( \
pt->allocator, \
sizeof(itemtype), \
(void **)&list_items, \
&list_len, \
&cap, \
&items->item, \
1 \
)) { \
test_fatalf(pt->t, "Failed appending"); \
assert(false); \
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
} \
} \
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
#define MKLISTBUILDER(name, listtype, itemtype, items_memb) \
struct LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(name) { \
bool has_item; \
itemtype item; \
}; \
listtype \
LISTBUILDER_NAME(name)( \
struct parser_test *pt, \
struct LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(name) items[] \
) { \
listtype list; \
size_t cap = 0; \
\
LISTBUILDER_FILL_LIST(pt, itemtype, items, list.items_memb, list.len, cap) \
\
return list; \
} \
#define MKCAPLISTBUILDER(name, listtype, itemtype, items_memb) \
struct LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(name) { \
bool has_item; \
itemtype item; \
}; \
listtype \
LISTBUILDER_NAME(name)( \
struct parser_test *pt, \
struct LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(name) items[] \
) { \
listtype list; \
\
LISTBUILDER_FILL_LIST(pt, itemtype, items, list.items_memb, list.len, list.cap) \
\
return list; \
} \
Parser tests: Make LIST_* macros type safe With the varargs approach that was used before, it was very easy to add a list item of the wrong type, which would (hopefully) result in an assertion violation, because va_arg() then read some senseless data.
2021-12-18 15:34:09 +00:00
#define LIST_BEGIN(pt, builder) (LISTBUILDER_NAME(builder)(pt, (struct LISTBUILDER_ITEM_NAME(builder)[]) {{.has_item=false
#define LIST_END }, {.has_item = false}}))
#define LIST_ADD }, {.has_item = true, .item =
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
MKLISTBUILDER(list, struct apfl_expr_list, struct apfl_expr_list_item, items)
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
MKCAPLISTBUILDER(body, struct apfl_expr_body, struct apfl_expr, items)
Introduce allocator abstraction We now no longer call malloc/free/... directly, but use an allocator object that is passed around. This was mainly done as a preparation for a garbage collector: The collector will need to know, how much memory we're using, introducing the collector abstraction will allow the GC to hook into the memory allocation and observe the memory usage. This has other potential applications: - We could now be embedded into applications that can't use the libc allocator. - There could be an allocator that limits the total amount of used memory, e.g. for sandboxing purposes. - In our tests we could use this to simulate out of memory conditions (implement an allocator that fails at the n-th allocation, increase n by one and restart the test until there are no more faked OOM conditions). The function signature of the allocator is basically exactly the same as the one Lua uses.
2022-02-08 21:53:13 +00:00
MKCAPLISTBUILDER(dict, struct apfl_expr_dict, struct apfl_expr_dict_pair, items)
MKCAPLISTBUILDER(complex_func, struct apfl_expr_complex_func, struct apfl_expr_subfunc, subfuncs)
MKCAPLISTBUILDER(params, struct apfl_expr_params, struct apfl_expr_params_item, params)
MKLISTBUILDER(assignable_list, struct apfl_expr_assignable_list, struct apfl_expr_assignable_list_item, items)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
#define POS(l, c) (struct apfl_position) { .line = l, .col = c }
static struct apfl_expr
var(struct parser_test *pt, int line, int col, const char *v)
{
return (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_VAR,
.position = POS(line, col),
.var = new_string(pt, v),
};
}
struct apfl_expr *
new_var(struct parser_test *pt, int line, int col, const char *v)
{
struct apfl_expr expr = var(pt, line, col, v);
return new_helper(pt, sizeof(struct apfl_expr), &expr);
}
static struct apfl_expr
dot(struct parser_test *pt, int line, int col, const char *rhs, struct apfl_expr *lhs)
{
return (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_DOT,
.position = POS(line, col),
.dot.lhs = lhs,
.dot.rhs = new_string(pt, rhs),
};
}
static struct apfl_expr *
new_dot(struct parser_test *pt, int line, int col, const char *rhs, struct apfl_expr *lhs)
{
struct apfl_expr expr = dot(pt, line, col, rhs, lhs);
return new_helper(pt, sizeof(struct apfl_expr), &expr);
}
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
static struct apfl_expr_const
num_const(apfl_number n)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_const) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CONST_NUMBER,
.number = n,
};
}
static struct apfl_expr_const
string_const(struct parser_test *pt, const char *s)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_const) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CONST_STRING,
.string = new_string(pt, s),
};
}
static struct apfl_expr_const
bool_const(bool b)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_const) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CONST_BOOLEAN,
.boolean = b,
};
}
static struct apfl_expr
const_expr(int line, int col, struct apfl_expr_const constant)
{
return (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CONSTANT,
.position = POS(line, col),
.constant = constant,
};
}
static struct apfl_expr *
new_const_expr(struct parser_test *pt, int line, int col, struct apfl_expr_const constant)
{
struct apfl_expr expr = const_expr(line, col, constant);
return new_helper(pt, sizeof(struct apfl_expr), &expr);
}
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
static struct apfl_expr_assignable
assignable_var(struct parser_test *pt, const char *name)
{
return (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER,
.var_or_member = {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, name),
},
};
}
static struct apfl_expr_assignable *
new_assignable_var(struct parser_test *pt, const char *name)
{
struct apfl_expr_assignable assignable = assignable_var(pt, name);
return new_helper(pt, sizeof(struct apfl_expr_assignable), &assignable);
}
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
TEST(empty, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "");
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(hello_world, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "print \"Hello World!\"");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.position = POS(1, 1),
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 1, "print"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_list_item) {
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
.expand = false,
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
.expr = new_const_expr(pt, 1, 7, string_const(pt, "Hello World!")),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(empty_function, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{}");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_SIMPLE_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 1),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.simple_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
LIST_END,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(empty_list, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[]");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_LIST,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END,
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(empty_dict, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[->]");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_DICT,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.dict = LIST_BEGIN(pt, dict)
LIST_END,
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(simple_dot_access, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "foo.bar");
expect_expr(pt, dot(pt, 1, 4, "bar", new_var(pt, 1, 1, "foo")));
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(simple_at_access, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "foo@bar");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 4),
.at.lhs = new_var(pt, 1, 1, "foo"),
.at.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 5, "bar"),
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(parens, t) {
// 1 2 3 4
// 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "foo (bar baz) (aaa ~bbb (ccc) ~(ddd (eee fff)))");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 1, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 5),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 6, "bar"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 1, 10, "baz")),
LIST_END
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 15),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 16, "aaa"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(true, new_var(pt, 1, 21, "bbb")),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 25),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 26, "ccc"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_ADD list_item(true, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 32),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 33, "ddd"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 37),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 38, "eee"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 1, 42, "fff")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(complex_dot_at_access, t) {
// 1 2
// 123456789 01 23456789012345
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "a@b.c@1@\"d\"@(e@(f.g h).i)");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 12),
.at = (struct apfl_expr_at) {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 8),
.at = (struct apfl_expr_at) {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 6),
.at = (struct apfl_expr_at) {
.lhs = new_dot(pt, 1, 4, "c", BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 2),
.at = (struct apfl_expr_at) {
.lhs = new_var(pt, 1, 1, "a"),
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 3, "b"),
}
} END_NEW),
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
.rhs = new_const_expr(pt, 1, 7, num_const(1)),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
} END_NEW,
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
.rhs = new_const_expr(pt, 1, 9, string_const(pt, "d")),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
} END_NEW,
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 13),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_dot(pt, 1, 23, "i", BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_AT,
.position = POS(1, 15),
.at = (struct apfl_expr_at) {
.lhs = new_var(pt, 1, 14, "e"),
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 16),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_dot(pt, 1, 18, "g",
new_var(pt, 1, 17, "f")
),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_list_item) {
.expr = new_var(pt, 1, 21, "h"),
.expand = false,
},
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
},
} END_NEW),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(factorial, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 1 2 3
// 12345678901234567890123456789012
"factorial := {\n"
" 0 -> 1\n"
" n -> * n (factorial (- n 1))\n"
"}\n"
"factorial 10"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(1, 11),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.lhs = assignable_var(pt, "factorial"),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_COMPLEX_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 14),
.complex_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, complex_func)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_subfunc) {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_CONSTANT,
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
.constant = num_const(0),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
LIST_ADD const_expr(2, 10, num_const(1)),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_subfunc) {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "n"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 10),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 10, "*"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 12, "n")),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 14),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 15, "factorial"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 25),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 26, "-"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 28, "n")),
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 3, 30,num_const(1))),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
},
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
LIST_END
} END_NEW
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(5, 1),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 5, 1, "factorial"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
Parser tests: Add helpers for creating consts
2021-12-18 15:11:23 +00:00
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 5, 11, num_const(10))),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(map, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 123456789012345678901234
"map := {\n"
"_ [] -> []\n"
"f [x ~xs] ->\n"
" [(f x) ~(map f xs)]\n"
"}\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(1, 5),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.lhs = assignable_var(pt, "map"),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_COMPLEX_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 8),
.complex_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, complex_func)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_subfunc) {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
parser+expr: Handle blank identifier (_)
2022-01-08 22:20:29 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_BLANK,
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
LIST_END,
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_LIST,
.position = POS(2, 9),
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END,
},
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_subfunc) {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "f"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "x"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(true, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "xs"),
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_LIST,
.position = POS(4, 5),
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(4, 6),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 4, 7, "f"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 4, 9, "x")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_ADD list_item(true, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(4, 13),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 4, 14, "map"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 4, 18, "f")),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 4, 20, "xs")),
LIST_END
},
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
},
LIST_END,
} END_NEW,
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
TEST(lists, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 123456789
"[1, 2 3,,# some comment\n"
",4 ~x ]"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_LIST,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 1, 2, num_const(1))),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 1, 5, num_const(2))),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 1, 7, num_const(3))),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 2, 2, num_const(4))),
LIST_ADD list_item(true, new_var(pt, 2, 5, "x")),
LIST_END,
});
// expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(stringification, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "'hello");
expect_expr(pt, const_expr(1, 1, string_const(pt, "hello")));
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(line_continuation, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
"foo \\ # A comment\n"
"bar \\\n"
"\\\n"
"baz\n"
"xyz"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 1, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 2, 1, "bar")),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 4, 1, "baz")),
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_expr(pt, var(pt, 5, 1, "xyz"));
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(dict, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 1 2 3
// 12345678901234567890123456789012
"[ a -> b, 'c -> d\n"
"e ->f g ->h\n"
"(i j) -> [1 2 3],, 42 -> [x -> y]\n"
"true -> false]\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_DICT,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.dict = LIST_BEGIN(pt, dict)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_var(pt, 1, 3, "a"),
.v = new_var(pt, 1, 8, "b"),
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_const_expr(pt, 1, 11, string_const(pt, "c")),
.v = new_var(pt, 1, 17, "d"),
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_var(pt, 2, 1, "e"),
.v = new_var(pt, 2, 5, "f"),
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_var(pt, 2, 7, "g"),
.v = new_var(pt, 2, 11, "h"),
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 1),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 2, "i"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 4, "j")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
.v = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_LIST,
.position = POS(3, 10),
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 3, 11, num_const(1))),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 3, 13, num_const(2))),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_const_expr(pt, 3, 15, num_const(3))),
LIST_END,
} END_NEW,
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_const_expr(pt, 3, 20, num_const(42)),
.v = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_DICT,
.position = POS(3, 26),
.dict = LIST_BEGIN(pt, dict)
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_var(pt, 3, 27, "x"),
.v = new_var(pt, 3, 32, "y"),
},
LIST_END,
} END_NEW,
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr_dict_pair) {
.k = new_const_expr(pt, 4, 1, bool_const(true)),
.v = new_const_expr(pt, 4, 9, bool_const(false)),
},
LIST_END
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(assignment, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 123456
"a = b\n"
// 1 2
// 12345678901234567890123456
"foo.bar := bar?pred = baz\n"
// 1 2 3
// 12345678901234567890123456789012345
"[[1 2] ~xs] = bla@(a b) := abc ~xyz\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(1, 3),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = false,
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.lhs = assignable_var(pt, "a"),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 5, "b"),
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(2, 9),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = true,
.lhs = (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER,
.var_or_member = {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_DOT,
.dot = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable_var_or_member) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "foo"),
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_string(pt, "bar"),
},
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
},
},
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(2, 21),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = false,
.lhs = (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_PREDICATE,
.predicate = (struct apfl_expr_assignable_predicate) {
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.lhs = new_assignable_var(pt, "bar"),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.rhs = new_var(pt, 2, 16, "pred"),
},
},
.rhs = new_var(pt, 2, 23, "baz"),
},
} END_NEW,
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(3, 13),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = false,
.lhs = (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, assignable_list)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD assignable_list_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, assignable_list)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD assignable_list_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_CONSTANT,
.constant = num_const(1),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD assignable_list_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_CONSTANT,
.constant = num_const(2),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
LIST_END,
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
LIST_ADD assignable_list_item(true, assignable_var(pt, "xs")),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
LIST_END,
},
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(3, 25),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = true,
.lhs = (struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER,
.var_or_member = {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_AT,
.at = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable_var_or_member) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "bla"),
} END_NEW,
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 19),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 20, "a"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 22, "b")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
},
}
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
},
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 28),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 28, "abc"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(true, new_var(pt, 3, 33, "xyz")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
},
} END_NEW,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(simple_function, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 12345678901
"{{\n"
" }; foo \\\n"
"bar { # comment...\n"
" baz = 10\n"
" a\n"
" b\n"
"}; c}\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_SIMPLE_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 1),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.simple_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_SIMPLE_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 2),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.simple_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
LIST_END,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
},
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(2, 8),
.call = (struct apfl_expr_call) {
.callee = new_var(pt, 2, 8, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 1, "bar")),
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_SIMPLE_FUNC,
.position = POS(3, 5),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.simple_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
LIST_ADD (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(4, 9),
.assignment = (struct apfl_expr_assignment) {
.local = false,
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
.lhs = assignable_var(pt, "baz"),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
.rhs = new_const_expr(pt, 4, 11, num_const(10)),
},
},
LIST_ADD var(pt, 5, 5, "a"),
LIST_ADD var(pt, 6, 5, "b"),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
},
LIST_ADD var(pt, 7, 4, "c"),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
});
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
TEST(complex_function, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
// 1 2
// 12345678901234567890123456789
"{ a ~b c?d?(e f) -> foo; bar\n"
" baz\n"
"1 [] ->; x [y?x ~ys] ->\n"
" a\n"
" b\n"
" c { x -> y }\n"
" \n"
"}\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_COMPLEX_FUNC,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.complex_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, complex_func)
LIST_ADD {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "a"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(true, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "b"),
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_PREDICATE,
.predicate = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_PREDICATE,
.predicate = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "c")
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 10, "d"),
},
} END_NEW,
.rhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(1, 12),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 1, 13, "e"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 1, 15, "f")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
},
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_ADD var(pt, 1, 21, "foo"),
LIST_ADD var(pt, 1, 26, "bar"),
LIST_ADD var(pt, 2, 5, "baz"),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
},
LIST_ADD {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_CONSTANT,
.constant = num_const(1),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
LIST_END,
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
LIST_END,
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
},
LIST_ADD {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "x"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_LIST,
.list = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_PREDICATE,
.predicate = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "y"),
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_var(pt, 3, 15, "x"),
},
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
LIST_ADD params_item(true, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "ys"),
}),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_END
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_ADD var(pt, 4, 5, "a"),
LIST_ADD var(pt, 5, 5, "b"),
LIST_ADD {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(6, 5),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 6, 5, "c"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_COMPLEX_FUNC,
.position = POS(6, 7),
.complex_func = LIST_BEGIN(pt, complex_func)
LIST_ADD {
.params = LIST_BEGIN(pt, params)
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
LIST_ADD params_item(false, (struct apfl_expr_param) {
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
.type = APFL_EXPR_PARAM_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "x"),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
}),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_END,
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
.body = LIST_BEGIN(pt, body)
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
LIST_ADD var(pt, 6, 14, "y"),
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
}
LIST_END
} END_NEW),
LIST_END,
},
}
expr: Remove refcount in body elements
2022-04-11 20:44:04 +00:00
LIST_END,
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
},
LIST_END,
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Add parser tests for function calls
2022-01-06 21:50:14 +00:00
TEST(function_calls, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t,
"foo\n"
"(foo)\n"
"foo bar\n"
"(foo bar)\n"
"((foo bar))\n"
"foo bar ~baz\n"
);
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_VAR,
.position = POS(1, 1),
.var = new_string(pt, "foo"),
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(2, 1),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 2, 2, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(3, 1),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 3, 1, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 3, 5, "bar")),
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(4, 1),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 4, 2, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 4, 6, "bar")),
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(5, 1),
.call = {
.callee = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(5, 2),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 5, 3, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 5, 7, "bar")),
LIST_END,
},
} END_NEW,
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_END
},
});
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_CALL,
.position = POS(6, 1),
.call = {
.callee = new_var(pt, 6, 1, "foo"),
.arguments = LIST_BEGIN(pt, list)
LIST_ADD list_item(false, new_var(pt, 6, 5, "bar")),
LIST_ADD list_item(true, new_var(pt, 6, 10, "baz")),
LIST_END,
},
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
TEST(member_assignment_with_predicate, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "a.b@c?d?e = f");
expect_expr(pt, (struct apfl_expr) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNMENT,
.position = POS(1, 11),
.assignment = {
.lhs = {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_PREDICATE,
.predicate = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_PREDICATE,
.predicate = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER,
.var_or_member = {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_AT,
.at = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable_var_or_member) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_DOT,
.dot = {
.lhs = BEGIN_NEW(pt, struct apfl_expr_assignable_var_or_member) {
.type = APFL_EXPR_ASSIGNABLE_VAR_OR_MEMBER_VAR,
.var = new_string(pt, "a"),
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_string(pt, "b"),
},
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 5, "c"),
},
},
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 7, "d"),
}
} END_NEW,
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 9, "e"),
},
},
.rhs = new_var(pt, 1, 13, "f")
}
});
expect_eof(pt);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Add tests for some parsing errors
2021-12-18 23:27:34 +00:00
TEST(err_empty_assignment, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "= foo bar");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_EMPTY_ASSIGNMENT);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_mismatching_parens, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{[(}");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_unclosed_func, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{ foo -> bar; baz a; b ->");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_EOF);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_unclosed_paren, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "(a b.c@d");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_EOF_AFTER_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_assignment_missing_rhs, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "foo = bar = ;");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_EMPTY_ASSIGNMENT);
// TODO: Actually kinda weird that we return the same error as in err_empty_assignment.
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_assignment_invalid_lhs, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{foo} = bar");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_INVALID_ASSIGNMENT_LHS);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
pt = new_parser_test(t, "(a b) = bar");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_INVALID_ASSIGNMENT_LHS);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_fragments_after_mapsto_in_empty_dict, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[-> foo]");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_fragments_after_mapsto_in_dict, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[a -> b, (c d) -> e foo->]");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_mapsto_in_list, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[a b c -> d]");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_expr_in_param, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{ foo (bar baz) -> }");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_EXPRESSION);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_statements_before_params, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{ a = b = foo bar; 1 \n baz -> }");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_STATEMENTS_BEFORE_PARAMETERS);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Parser: Fix not setting error when -> is missing in dictionaries
2022-01-05 20:50:50 +00:00
TEST(err_dict_mapsto_missing, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[foo -> bar, baz wtf -> xyu]");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_dict_mapsto_too_early, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[foo -> bar -> baz]");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
TEST(err_assign_multiple_expands_per_level, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[~foo ~bar] = baz");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_ONLY_ONE_EXPAND_ALLOWED);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_assign_multiple_expands_per_level_nested, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[1 [~foo ~bar]] = baz");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_ONLY_ONE_EXPAND_ALLOWED);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_params_multiple_expands, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{ ~foo ~bar -> baz }");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_ONLY_ONE_EXPAND_ALLOWED);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_params_multiple_expands_nested, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "{ 1 [~foo ~bar] -> baz }");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_ONLY_ONE_EXPAND_ALLOWED);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
TEST(err_unexpected_expression_in_member_assignable, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "(foo).bar = 123");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_EXPR_IN_MEMBER_ACCESS);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_unexpected_constant_in_member_assignable, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "nil.bar = 456");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_CONSTANT_IN_MEMBER_ACCESS);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
TEST(err_unexpected_assignment_member_access, t) {
struct parser_test *pt = new_parser_test(t, "[1 2 3]@bar = 456");
expect_error_of_type(pt, APFL_ERR_UNEXPECTED_TOKEN);
destroy_parser_test(pt);
}
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
TESTS_BEGIN
ADDTEST(empty),
ADDTEST(hello_world),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-17 20:08:03 +00:00
ADDTEST(empty_function),
ADDTEST(empty_list),
ADDTEST(empty_dict),
ADDTEST(simple_dot_access),
ADDTEST(simple_at_access),
ADDTEST(parens),
ADDTEST(complex_dot_at_access),
ADDTEST(factorial),
ADDTEST(map),
Add more parser tests
2021-12-18 15:12:37 +00:00
ADDTEST(lists),
ADDTEST(stringification),
ADDTEST(line_continuation),
ADDTEST(dict),
ADDTEST(assignment),
ADDTEST(simple_function),
Add another parser test
2021-12-18 16:06:17 +00:00
ADDTEST(complex_function),
Add parser tests for function calls
2022-01-06 21:50:14 +00:00
ADDTEST(function_calls),
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
ADDTEST(member_assignment_with_predicate),
Add tests for some parsing errors
2021-12-18 23:27:34 +00:00
ADDTEST(err_empty_assignment),
ADDTEST(err_mismatching_parens),
ADDTEST(err_unclosed_func),
ADDTEST(err_unclosed_paren),
ADDTEST(err_assignment_missing_rhs),
ADDTEST(err_assignment_invalid_lhs),
ADDTEST(err_fragments_after_mapsto_in_empty_dict),
ADDTEST(err_fragments_after_mapsto_in_dict),
ADDTEST(err_mapsto_in_list),
ADDTEST(err_expr_in_param),
ADDTEST(err_statements_before_params),
Parser: Fix not setting error when -> is missing in dictionaries
2022-01-05 20:50:50 +00:00
ADDTEST(err_dict_mapsto_missing),
ADDTEST(err_dict_mapsto_too_early),
Improve AST representation of expansion in assignables / parameters The previous representation didn't properly model the fact that an assignable / parameter can only be expanded, if it's a list element. This now better models this. Other than being more correct, this should also make evaluating these a bit easier. While I was at it, I also improved the error message for multiple expansions on the same level and added tests for these.
2022-01-07 22:08:25 +00:00
ADDTEST(err_assign_multiple_expands_per_level),
ADDTEST(err_assign_multiple_expands_per_level_nested),
ADDTEST(err_params_multiple_expands),
ADDTEST(err_params_multiple_expands_nested),
expr+parser: Restrict what an assignable can be If you assign into a member access (`foo.bar = baz` or `foo@bar = baz`), it is no longer permitted that the LHS of the at/dot is an arbitrary assignable. It now must be a variable, at or dot. This disallows some silly constructs (e.g. `[foo]@bar = baz`), increases the similarity to function parameters and should make writing the evaluation code for these more easy.
2022-01-08 21:55:24 +00:00
ADDTEST(err_unexpected_expression_in_member_assignable),
ADDTEST(err_unexpected_constant_in_member_assignable),
ADDTEST(err_unexpected_assignment_member_access),
Add first parser test cases
2021-12-16 22:42:37 +00:00
TESTS_END
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink