World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5205x3] | to-error doesn't create armed errors anymore which is a bit strange... in the least they are not triggering errors when used within an extension's init block. |
one function which I would really like to see added to R3 is a search function which searches the body of all resident code and returns paths or full text of every place an occurence of your search is found. | |
in this case, I could see where cause-error is used and could learn from the mezz code. | |
Gabriele 12-Oct-2010 [5208] | iirc you just pass an error! value to cause-error |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5209x5] | It seems do to-error "whatever" also works. but I'd like to get the list of valid types and expected args for cause-error. |
the online-docs just say that the lists should be filled in... ' :-/ | |
I'm building a search function, btw. so far not bad. still have to solve a little unset! issue | |
here my simple but effective r3 search function: ;------------------------------------------------------------ search-body: funct [ data [object! block! function!] "what to search" word [word!] "what to find" /paths "only returns paths, not their values" /indents i "how many tabs when listing?" /into blk "Add matches to this block" /path pth [lit-path!] "keep track of path" ][ i: any [i 0] unless into [ set 'searched-objects copy [] ; will set in "globals" ] either block? :data [ b: data ][ b: body-of :data ] ; locals item: none match?: false blk: any [blk copy []] pth: any [all [pth copy pth] to-lit-path ""] last-set-word: none counter: 0 foreach item :b [ counter: counter + 1 result: switch/default type?/word :item [ set-word! [ last-set-word: :item false ] object! [ ; prevent endless cycles on self or inter references. unless find searched-objects :item [ append searched-objects :item either block? data [ search-body/indents/into/path :item word i + 1 blk append copy pth counter ][ search-body/indents/into/path :item word i + 1 blk append copy pth to-word last-set-word ] ] true ] function! [ either word = to-word last-set-word [ ; adds the definition OF the searched item append/only blk to-lit-path append/only copy pth last-set-word append/only blk mold :item ][ if search-body/indents/into/path :item word i + 1 blk pth [ ; adds a function WITH the searched item in it append/only blk to-lit-path append/only copy pth last-set-word append/only blk mold :item ] ] true ] integer! tuple! string! [ if last-set-word [ if word = to-word last-set-word [ append/only blk to-lit-path append/only copy pth last-set-word append/only blk :item ] ] true ] block! [ search-body/indents/into/path :item word i + 1 blk append copy pth counter true ] ; this is what we search for word! [ either :item = word [ match?: true ][ false ] ] ][ ; these types are not specifically managed by the search false ] ] either into [ match? ][ set 'quiet-search? false new-line/skip blk true 2 ] ] ;---------------------------------------------- | |
in A107... search-body system 'red == [ 'contexts/system/red: 255.0.0 'contexts/user/red: 255.0.0 ] search-body system 'error! == [ 'contexts/system/map: {make function! [[ "Temporary function to catch MAP usage changes." ][ make error! {The MAP function has been rename to MAP-EACH. Update your code.} ]]} 'contexts/system/cause-error: {make function! [[ {Causes an immediate error throw with the provided information.} err-type [word!] err-id [word!] args ][ args: compose [(:args)] forall args [ if any-function? first args [ change/only args spec-of first args ] ] do make error! [ type: err-type id: err-id arg1: first args arg2: second args arg3: third args ] ]]} 'contexts/system/to-error: {make function! [["Converts to error! value." value][to error! :value]]} ] | |
Henrik 12-Oct-2010 [5214] | a: [a] parse [] a R3 quits. Bug? |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5215x2] | oops ... the end of the function should be replaced by: either into [ match? ][ either paths [ blk: extract blk 2 new-line/all blk true ][ new-line/skip blk true 2 ] ] |
henrik, any case where R3 just quits is a bug... no? | |
Henrik 12-Oct-2010 [5217] | I would assume so, but still asking to be sure. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5218x4] | with above changes, one can use search-body() using the paths refinement.... like so: >> search-body/paths system 'error! == [ 'contexts/system/map: 'contexts/system/cause-error: 'contexts/system/to-error: ] |
I hope the above function makes it easier for you guys to track down where words are being used and defined. :-) | |
note, it only accumulates then within objects and functions for now. | |
in some cases block, might trigger a match but it doesn't seem completely functional, but for me, the above is enough. | |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5222] | Maxim, to answer your questions about cause-error: Three arguments, the first two being words from system/catalog/errors, the last one eiither being a single value of any type or a block of up to three values, depending on which error you are generating. All the info you need about a particular error is in system/catalog/errors. The number of arguments in the argument block is fixed, per error. The usage is in the phrasing of the error message. Pick arguments that when molded and put in that position in the error message would make the error message make sense. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5223] | thx :-) |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5224x3] | For instance, when I needed to come up with the right error to trigger when a function refinement was incompatible with the datatype of another argument, there wasn't an explicit error for that. But after looking through the catalog, I came up with this: >> cause-error 'script 'cannot-use [load-module/as block!] ** script error: cannot use load-module/as on block! value |
It will do until there is a better error for that situation. | |
CAUSE-ERROR is mezzanine in R3 and 2.7.7, so just source it :) | |
Gregg 12-Oct-2010 [5227] | Could the above notes be added to cause-error docs? |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5228] | Sounds like a good idea. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5229] | yes, that would be a good first clue, since the current docs give no indication on how to proceed right now... I should have sourced cause-error, and I usually do... but this time well... I guess I assumed it was a native :-) |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5230] | First thing I do when wondering about a function is HELP it. That tells me the basics, and also mentions its datatype. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5231x2] | yep. |
step 2 is source it ;-) | |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5233x2] | Yup :) |
Step three is experiments at the console, calling it with test data. | |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5235] | Q: does reflect unbind the blocks it returns? |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5236] | It unbinds function code blocks, but intentionally binds object word blocks. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5237x3] | is there a way to get a bound copy of a function's body? sometimes, its nice to be able to figure out why a sub-function isn't doing what its supposed to... this could be subject to protection schemes... so that a protected member cannot be shown via its function body. |
this is also true of the stack function... it should not cross any protection... since doing so reveals what *it* calls... | |
(though I'm not saying it currently does just raising up the issue if it wasn't planned already) | |
Andreas 12-Oct-2010 [5240x2] | http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/cause-error.html |
I took Brian's notes from above and edited some basic CAUSE-ERROR docs around them. | |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5242x2] | No bound copy of a function body, for security reasons. The kind of hot-patching that was possible in R2 was always a security hole. Plus, it's not task-safe. For that matter, BODY-OF always returns a copy or constructed value, never the original, and code that currently uses it relies on this. |
BODY-OF doesn't return the original for objects or modules either. | |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5244x2] | the copy I don't mind... that's cool, its the fact that it always unbinds (which is what you seem to say). its not a security hole if the functions aren't hidden or protected in some way. I just want to know what a function within a function actually is calling... if its unbound... well I can't make any real inspection tool or debugger... right now I can go a lot further than R2, except this ... unless I didn't properly understand you. |
its a bit like a dll, you only have access to the dll within a debugger if it was compiled with debugging... I'd like that to still be the case within rebol. | |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5246] | There are two ways of hiding values. The tricky way is to use PROTECT/hide on a publically visible context. The more common, easier way is to use contexts that aren't publically accesible. There is no way that a reflector can tell if a bound context is not accessible, but the unbind trick prevents that kind of hack. And since inaccesible contexts might contain private information like encryption keys that might not belong to the person running the R3 process, there is no security setting that can make this safe to not do. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5247] | I just finished a very powerfull new version of the search tool... it now even allows you to search for any value, even unset!. ( I just did a search to find all unset words in the whole system and it works without a hitch... ) also, if some data in the system is a string, it tries to find a formed value of your search value inside of it:-) |
Steeve 12-Oct-2010 [5248] | Maxim, I felt the same back In time. A tool like anamonitor is not anymore possible. (cry on my face) |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5249] | But DRM is. Whether you consider that an advantage or not though... |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5250] | well, we can, but its severely limits debugging and frankly there is a way to do . any context should have the possibility of having a private/public flag on it... its that simple. whenever you try to reflect a private context, it returns unset! (unbound) values. |
BrianH 12-Oct-2010 [5251] | It is assumed that people doing debugging have access to the source. And in the case of source written in REBOL, that is likely the case now. |
Steeve 12-Oct-2010 [5252] | Though debuging the source and a runtime session, is not the same thing. |
Maxim 12-Oct-2010 [5253x2] | but you cannot resolve the run-time in data. since things are bound dynamically. the name of a func is useless... we need to be able to trace it back to its context by getting its value. this doesn't give us the context, but at least we can see what the function really is. |
if things really need to be private, then anything which comes from a private context could just be flagged as such and inspection routines wouldn't return their values. | |
older newer | first last |