Activity
From 03/08/2025 to 04/06/2025
04/03/2025
- 08:41 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I think we will need a custom driver that loads everything (all rule set files) and forces all content to parse and a...
- 07:21 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I'm starting a new approach similar to @Expression.main()@ to compile expression rules.
- 06:33 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I tried different ways to compile expressions without any @ast@, but without success. I used @AstSymbolResolver.getRe...
04/02/2025
- 09:18 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- After some investigation, I believe the only way the TRPL expression can be compiled is by processing it together wit...
04/01/2025
- 08:11 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Please try to confirm all of your numbers using other matching techniques (even something like gr... - 07:19 AM Feature #1745 (WIP): review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- 05:56 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Please try to confirm all of your numbers using other matching techniques (even something like grep). Many of the nu...
- 04:51 AM Feature #1745 (Review): review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained ...
- Instrumented @expression.g@, both rules and tokens, into *1745a/15796*. Now, the results look like this:
|_.Featur...
03/31/2025
- 09:25 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > Greg, what do you think about the numbers above? Also, what should I continue tracking with?
>... - 09:24 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- > Greg, what do you think about the numbers above? Also, what should I continue tracking with?
Please instrument @... - 04:32 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Octavian Adrian Gavril wrote:
> I reviewed @ConfigLoader.java@ along with [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Rule-Sets]] and these a... - 03:08 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I've added the elements mentioned in [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions#Features|Features]] to be tracked. I've also incl...
03/26/2025
- 03:05 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Greg, as you suggested in the last call, I created a new task about that performance gap described in #1745-27.
- 03:00 AM Bug #9835: The same rules files are loaded and compiled multiple times
- During a tags count in TRPL, it was found that many @.rules@ files are loaded and compiled multiple times. This sugge...
- 02:54 AM Bug #9835 (WIP): The same rules files are loaded and compiled multiple times
03/24/2025
- 11:00 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I've added some changes to avoid multiple uploads of the same @.rules@ file. The numbers seem accurate, so I hope I'v...
- 09:50 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I added another class (@TRPLFeatureTracker@) to search for all @.xml@ files and process them with the @processTrees@ ...
03/20/2025
- 02:02 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- > I committed the initial implementation of TRPL feature tracking system
These are interesting results. Some feed... - 01:49 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- > Updated the [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions#Features|Expression Features]] documentation. I added an introduction to...
- 11:00 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- I committed the initial implementation of TRPL feature tracking system into task branch *1745a/15792*. I added a clas...
- 07:46 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Please, let me know if improvements are needed.
- 07:44 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Updated the [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Expressions#Features|Expression Features]] documentation. I added an introduction to t...
03/19/2025
- 01:21 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Greg Shah wrote:
> > Still looking for the *Automatic Null Checking* implementation to expand its documentation.
> ... - 01:04 PM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Octavian Adrian Gavril wrote:
> Eric, is *Automatic Null Checking* related to code sections similar to this?
>
> ... - 10:26 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Yes, that works.
- 10:16 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Is it OK if I start with the items mentioned in the table in [[p2j:Writing_TRPL_Rule-Sets#Pipeline-and-Ruleset-Profil...
- 08:27 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Question from Octavian:
> Should I configure ConfigLoader and Compiler to track each .rules file/.xml file/rule-se...
03/14/2025
- 05:44 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Ovidiu, I will be honest, I don't know. I just created a patch that prints the keys in a file, and that's it, I didn'...
03/13/2025
- 01:11 PM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Radu,
I had peeked at the list you compiled. I am puzzled by something: why are there customer-specific values saved... - 07:20 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Remove the customer-specific stuff (you can leave behind description of what was removed) and post it in #9721.
- 07:16 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Greg Shah wrote:
> We need to post that somewhere else, it has customer table names in it. Also, this is better don... - 06:41 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- We need to post that somewhere else, it has customer table names in it. Also, this is better done in a FWD sub-proje...
- 05:04 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Here's a list of all annotations that were identified in at least one customer application. They are already sorted i...
03/12/2025
- 01:14 PM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- > If the point is for TRPL to be independent of what the annotations are, can a provider for the annotations be plug...
- 11:03 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- If the point is for TRPL to be independent of what the annotations are, can a provider for the annotations be plugge...
- 10:54 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- It is an interesting idea.
Pros:
* There would be a simple way to check if an annotation name was valid.
* Pe... - 10:41 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- The main reason is the performance of the @AnnotateAst.annotations@ map - this was optimized in the past, especially ...
- 10:33 AM Feature #9770: Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
- Because I'm currently working on gathering all annotation types (or as many as I can find), this idea was brought up....
- 10:28 AM Feature #9770 (New): Change annotation key type from plain string to Enum
03/10/2025
- 09:03 AM Feature #1745: review, decide upon and document the 1.0 features which will be retained in 2.0
- Eric, is *Automatic Null Checking* related to code sections similar to this?...
Also available in: Atom