Remove sed for condition #381

Mte90 · 2024-07-30T15:46:39Z

In this way we are configuring the scale we want to approximate.

Right now some tests doens't work as we have again issues on bash generation:

function foo__0_v0 {
    local a=$1
    local b=$2
    eval "${a}=$(
        eval "echo "scale=0
        ${!a}/${b}" | bc -l"
    )"
}

Instead it should be:

function foo__0_v0 {
    local a=$1
    local b=$2
    eval "${a}=$(
        eval "echo \"scale=0
        ${!a}/${b}\" | bc -l"
    )"
}

As you can see the eco inside the second eval is not escaped.
I guess the issue is there https://github.com/amber-lang/amber/blob/master/src/modules/shorthand/add.rs#L68

But it is a similar issue of #376 with missing/wrong escaping.

Ph0enixKM

@Mte90 can you explain better what are you trying to do in some of these changes besides removing the sed dependency?

Ph0enixKM · 2024-08-06T09:30:13Z

src/translate/compute.rs

 let op = match operation {
 ArithOp::Add => "+",
 ArithOp::Sub => "-",
 ArithOp::Mul => "*",
- ArithOp::Div => "/",
+ ArithOp::Div => {
+ scale = "scale=0;";


I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Why do we set scale to zero? This will treat Num as integer for all division operations:

I saw that in this way the test works in the majority of cases

Yeah but we shouldn't sacrifice the precision too. 1/2 should still equal 0.5 and not 0

We should have tests for those cases so we can see if there is an issue or not.

src/translate/compute.rs

Ph0enixKM · 2024-08-08T16:37:09Z

@Mte90 but the scale parameter gets rid of the fraction part in the number

Mte90 · 2024-08-09T09:32:41Z

@Mte90 but the scale parameter gets rid of the fraction part in the number

If you see with the tests everything works in this way.
We have issues in some cases because:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Written in [Amber](https://amber-lang.com/)
# version: 0.3.4-alpha
# date: 2024-08-09 11:26:27
function foo__0_v0 {
    local a=$1
    local b=$2
    eval "${a}=$(
        eval "echo "scale=0
        ${!a}/${b}" | bc -l"
    )"
}
__0_a=15
foo__0_v0 __0_a 3
__AF_foo0_v0__9_1="$__AF_foo0_v0"
echo "$__AF_foo0_v0__9_1" >/dev/null 2>&1
echo ${__0_a}

The echo command is not escaped rightly and the bash script fails. That is part of the other PR as documented.
If some cases are not covered for fraction we have to create more tests.

Mte90 · 2024-09-19T08:53:54Z

So right now there are all the tests, the problem is that there is a wrong escaping of variables in the generated bash so doesn't work.

I wrote about it on #381 (comment)

Ph0enixKM · 2024-09-27T17:29:34Z

@Mte90 This PR has many tests failed

Mte90 · 2024-09-27T20:38:15Z

@Ph0enixKM yeah I wrote on #381 (comment) why there are issues that depends on another bug

Ph0enixKM · 2024-10-01T08:37:48Z

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Written in [Amber](https://amber-lang.com/)
# version: 0.3.4-alpha
# date: 2024-08-09 11:26:27

function foo__0_v0 {
    local a=$1
    local b=$2
    eval "${a}=$(
        eval "echo "scale=0
        ${!a}/${b}" | bc -l"
    )"
}
__0_a=15
foo__0_v0 __0_a 3
__AF_foo0_v0__9_1="$__AF_foo0_v0"
echo "$__AF_foo0_v0__9_1" >/dev/null 2>&1
echo ${__0_a}

@Mte90 Can you provide the Amber code that you used to generate this Bash code? Without it, it'll be hard to decipher what went wrong.

Mte90 · 2024-10-01T10:44:42Z

If you try to compile the ./src/tests/validity/variable_ref_div_arithmetic_num.ab test you can see the escaping issue.

I improved the code, now the sed trailing zero there is only for the division in this way the code generated is more clean.

fun foo(ref a) {
    a += 12
}

let a = 24
foo(a)
echo a

foo__0_v0() {
    local a=$1
    local b=$2
    eval "${a}=$(
        eval "echo "scale=3
        ${!a}/${b}" | bc -l| sed "/\./ s/\.\{0,1\}0\{1,\}$//""
    )"
}
__0_a=15
foo__0_v0 __0_a 3
__AF_foo0_v0__9_1="$__AF_foo0_v0"
echo "$__AF_foo0_v0__9_1" >/dev/null 2>&1
echo ${__0_a}

src/translate/compute.rs

hdwalters · 2024-10-01T21:10:25Z

src/translate/compute.rs

 let op = match operation {
 ArithOp::Add => "+",
 ArithOp::Sub => "-",
 ArithOp::Mul => "*",
- ArithOp::Div => "/",
+ ArithOp::Div => {
+ after_bc = sed_regex;


You don't need a separate variable to store the "regex", you can assign a string literal here, like you do with scale below. Also, can we please use a more descriptive term than after_bc, such as strip_zeroes?

ArithOp::Div => { strip_zeroes = "| sed \"/\\./ s/\\.\\{0,1\\}0\\{1,\\}$//\""; "/" },

right now is strip zeros, maybe in the futurer is something else.
As there is still the issue with the escaping in the bash generated I am not sure if this PRs is fine as it is now.

hdwalters · 2024-10-01T21:43:12Z

src/translate/compute.rs

- let sed_regex = "/\\./ s/\\.\\{0,1\\}0\\{1,\\}$//";
+ let mut scale = "";
+ let mut after_bc = "";
+ let sed_regex = "| sed \"/\\./ s/\\.\\{0,1\\}0\\{1,\\}$//\"";


This sed replacement is suspect in two ways: (i) it makes two separate regex calls, one in the initial test for a single ".", and another in the actual substitution; and (ii) it fails to strip trailing "0"s from "123.000". I would like to propose an alternative, which also IMO has the additional advantage of being slightly more readable:

"| sed \"s/\$\\.\\(0\\|[0-9]*[1-9]\$\\)00*$/\\1/\""

This finds a "." followed by either a single "0", or any digits followed by a non "0" digit, and replaces that capture with the capture itself, discarding any subsequent "0"s.

I also suggest ensuring that whatever unit tests we have for this include the following cases (that is, if it's possible to make bc output the ones with extra "0"s):

0 123 1230 12300 123000 123.0 123.00 123.000 123.45 123.450 123.4500 123.45000 123.0045 123.00450 123.004500 123.0045000

Should output:

0 123 1230 12300 123000 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.45 123.45 123.45 123.45 123.0045 123.0045 123.0045 123.0045

the test right now is that now https://github.com/amber-lang/amber/blob/master/src/tests/validity/div.ab if you can suggest me the calculation to do I will add there

I agree with @hdwalters

I am crap with math, if you can help me to write the tests to generate numbers like this on a division I can add them.

hdwalters · 2024-10-01T22:02:19Z

src/translate/compute.rs

 ArithOp::Modulo => {
- math_lib_flag = false;
+ scale = "scale=0;";


This doesn't appear to work:

$ echo 'scale=0;1.4+2.4' | bc 3.8

Did I miss something?

the unit tests for the modulo works as they are now.
I suggest to check those.

I too couldn't wrap my head around it

that change is for the modulo stuff, with this change the tests we have right now works.

Ph0enixKM · 2024-10-03T17:51:34Z

src/std/math.ab

@@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ pub fun ceil(number: Num): Num {
 /// Returns the absolute value of a number
 #[allow_absurd_cast]
 pub fun abs(number: Num): Num {
- if number < 0: return -number
+ if number < 0: return number * -1


What's the point of this? Why not leave the -number?

because doesn't work with this change, without that change this test fails.

Mte90 · 2024-10-04T08:20:30Z

This PR has various issues.

The big one that doesn't let me to finish and do all the tests and verify everything is that the bash generated has errors in the escaping as I wrote here #381 (comment)

Until that situation is not fixed in Amber itself I can't do all the checks that are need to move on.

Mte90 requested review from Ph0enixKM, b1ek and KrosFire July 30, 2024 15:46

Mte90 mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2024

[Feature] Numbers and arbitrary precison #70

Open

Ph0enixKM requested changes Aug 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

Mte90 marked this pull request as ready for review September 19, 2024 08:44

feat(code): reset

350f621

Mte90 force-pushed the bc-sed-byebye branch from d810fea to 350f621 Compare September 19, 2024 08:50

feat(code): reset

7758ad4

This was referenced Sep 23, 2024

[BUG] Continuous integration sometimes generates false "test failed" notifications #484

Open

Implement builtin glob function #488

Closed

Mte90 mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2024

[Feature] Make Amber work in Git Bash on Windows #490

Closed

fix(div): regex

f7d59ef

Mte90 requested a review from Ph0enixKM October 1, 2024 10:44

fix(stdlib): improved abs function

66d4653

Mte90 requested a review from hdwalters October 1, 2024 10:54

hdwalters requested changes Oct 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

hdwalters reviewed Oct 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix(review): improved code

8eff3fe

Ph0enixKM reviewed Oct 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

Ph0enixKM added this to the Amber 0.5.0-alpha milestone Oct 4, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove sed for condition #381

Remove sed for condition #381

Mte90 commented Jul 30, 2024

Ph0enixKM left a comment

Ph0enixKM Aug 6, 2024

Mte90 Aug 6, 2024

Ph0enixKM Aug 12, 2024

Mte90 Aug 13, 2024

Ph0enixKM commented Aug 8, 2024

Mte90 commented Aug 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

Mte90 commented Sep 19, 2024

Ph0enixKM commented Sep 27, 2024

Mte90 commented Sep 27, 2024

Ph0enixKM commented Oct 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mte90 commented Oct 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hdwalters Oct 1, 2024

Mte90 Oct 2, 2024

hdwalters Oct 1, 2024

hdwalters Oct 1, 2024

Mte90 Oct 2, 2024

Ph0enixKM Oct 3, 2024

Mte90 Oct 4, 2024

hdwalters Oct 1, 2024

Mte90 Oct 2, 2024

Ph0enixKM Oct 3, 2024

Mte90 Oct 4, 2024

Ph0enixKM Oct 3, 2024

Mte90 Oct 4, 2024

Mte90 commented Oct 4, 2024

Remove sed for condition #381

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Remove sed for condition #381

Conversation

Mte90 commented Jul 30, 2024

Ph0enixKM left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ph0enixKM commented Aug 8, 2024

Mte90 commented Aug 9, 2024 • edited Loading

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

Mte90 commented Sep 19, 2024

Ph0enixKM commented Sep 27, 2024

Mte90 commented Sep 27, 2024

Ph0enixKM commented Oct 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Mte90 commented Oct 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mte90 commented Oct 4, 2024

Mte90 commented Aug 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Ph0enixKM commented Oct 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Mte90 commented Oct 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading