StudioInfinity/dyna3
2
0
Fork 1
Code Issues 44 Pull requests Projects 2 Releases 2 Wiki Activity Actions

Generalize constraints to observables #48

Merged
glen merged 25 commits from Vectornaut/dyna3:observables_on_main into main 2025-03-10 23:43:25 +00:00
Conversation 69 Commits 25 Files changed 7 +15 -15
3 changed files with 15 additions and 15 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit b3e4e902f3 - Show all commits

14
app-proto/src/add_remove.rs
View file

@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
(subject_vec[0].clone(), subject_vec[1].clone())
}
);
let measured = state.assembly.elements.map(
let measurement = state.assembly.elements.map(
move |elts| {
let reps = (
elts[subjects.0].representation.get_clone(),
@ -209,13 +209,13 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
reps.0.dot(&(&*Q * reps.1))
}
);
let desired = create_signal(0.0);
let set_point = create_signal(0.0);
let role = create_signal(RegulatorRole::Measurement);
state.assembly.insert_regulator(Regulator {
subjects: subjects,
measured: measured,
desired: desired,
desired_text: create_signal(String::new()),
measurement: measurement,
set_point: set_point,
set_point_text: create_signal(String::new()),
role: role,
});
state.selection.update(|sel| sel.clear());
@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
&JsValue::from(reg.subjects.0),
&JsValue::from(reg.subjects.1),
&JsValue::from(":"),
&JsValue::from(reg.desired.get_untracked())
&JsValue::from(reg.set_point.get_untracked())
);
}
});
@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
console::log_1(&JsValue::from(
format!("Updated constraint with subjects ({}, {})", subjects.0, subjects.1)
));
desired.track();
set_point.track();
if role.with(|rl| rl.is_valid_constraint()) {
state.assembly.realize();
}

8
app-proto/src/assembly.rs
View file

@ -128,9 +128,9 @@ impl RegulatorRole {
#[derive(Clone)]
pub struct Regulator {
pub subjects: (ElementKey, ElementKey),
pub measured: ReadSignal<f64>,
pub desired: Signal<f64>,
pub desired_text: Signal<String>,
pub measurement: ReadSignal<f64>,
pub set_point: Signal<f64>,
pub set_point_text: Signal<String>,
pub role: Signal<RegulatorRole>
}
@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ impl Assembly {
let subjects = reg.subjects;
let row = elts[subjects.0].column_index.unwrap();
let col = elts[subjects.1].column_index.unwrap();
gram_to_be.push_sym(row, col, reg.desired.get_untracked());
gram_to_be.push_sym(row, col, reg.set_point.get_untracked());
}
}
});

8
app-proto/src/outline.rs
View file

@ -25,8 +25,8 @@ fn RegulatorInput(regulator: Regulator) -> View {
view! {
input(
r#type="text",
placeholder=regulator.measured.with(|result| result.to_string()),
bind:value=regulator.desired_text,
placeholder=regulator.measurement.with(|result| result.to_string()),
bind:value=regulator.set_point_text,
on:change=move |event: Event| {
let target: HtmlInputElement = event.target().unwrap().unchecked_into();
let value = target.value();
@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ fn RegulatorInput(regulator: Regulator) -> View {
regulator.role.set(Measurement);
} else {
match target.value().parse::<f64>() {
Ok(desired) => batch(|| {
regulator.desired.set(desired);
Ok(set_pt) => batch(|| {
regulator.set_point.set(set_pt);
regulator.role.set(Constraint(true));
}),
Err(_) => regulator.role.set(Constraint(false))
glen marked this conversation as resolved
glen commented 2025-03-10 19:36:54 +00:00
Review
Copy link

Please could you explain to me the three moves in the three closures in this view! macro, the one that specifies the class of the input element, the one that specifies its change handler, and the one that specifies its keydown handler?

If I am understanding Rust correctly, the move annotation specifies that the closure should take ownership of any free variables that appear therein. So that would mean that the function that computes the class of the input takes ownership of the regulator. Why is that desired? Is it because the input element may not actually be realized until after the RegulatorInput function returns, and the ownership transfer extends the lifetime of the regulator until the closure has a chance to run and grab the info it needs to set the class (or perhaps actually, it has to persist that regulator indefinitely and then it can react to all future changes to the regulator)? The class-calculating closure of the input element seems like a slightly odd place for the long-term ownership of the regulator to reside, but maybe it doesn't really matter what owns it, as long as it persists indefinitely?

But it seems my suggestions in the previous paragraph can't possibly be correct, because regulator also occurs free in the closure passed as on:change, but the ownership of one entity can't exist in two places, if I am understanding correctly. So I guess please just explain to me what's going on here.

And finally, the third move seems the most confusing. For the life of me, I can't see any free variables in the closure passed as on:keydown, so there doesn't seem to be anything to move, and so the move shouldn't be there.

Thanks in advance for illuminating these things for me.

Please could you explain to me the three `move`s in the three closures in this `view!` macro, the one that specifies the class of the input element, the one that specifies its change handler, and the one that specifies its keydown handler? If I am understanding Rust correctly, the `move` annotation specifies that the closure should take ownership of any free variables that appear therein. So that would mean that the function that computes the class of the input takes ownership of the regulator. Why is that desired? Is it because the input element may not actually be realized until after the RegulatorInput function returns, and the ownership transfer extends the lifetime of the regulator until the closure has a chance to run and grab the info it needs to set the class (or perhaps actually, it has to persist that regulator indefinitely and then it can react to all future changes to the regulator)? The class-calculating closure of the input element seems like a slightly odd place for the long-term ownership of the regulator to reside, but maybe it doesn't really matter what owns it, as long as it persists indefinitely? But it seems my suggestions in the previous paragraph can't possibly be correct, because `regulator` also occurs free in the closure passed as `on:change`, but the ownership of one entity can't exist in two places, if I am understanding correctly. So I guess please just explain to me what's going on here. And finally, the third `move` seems the most confusing. For the life of me, I can't see _any_ free variables in the closure passed as `on:keydown`, so there doesn't seem to be anything _to_ move, and so the `move` shouldn't be there. Thanks in advance for illuminating these things for me.
glen commented 2025-03-10 23:26:48 +00:00
Review
Copy link

Replying to your latest post here, to keep it in this resolvable conversation. Ah, the fact that Signal has Copy semantics makes this code much clearer. I didn't know that, and it seems a weird quirk of Rust to me that with ownership such a crucial concept to Rust, it is not clear whether copy or ownership transfer is in effect and I don't see any way you can know without consulting the source/docs for Signal.

Anyhow, I now get the first two moves. And now I see that reset_value is just a local closure, and that's what's being moved by the third move (for the keydown event). So that's good. Resolving.

Replying to your latest post here, to keep it in this resolvable conversation. Ah, the fact that Signal has Copy semantics makes this code much clearer. I didn't know that, and it seems a weird quirk of Rust to me that with ownership such a crucial concept to Rust, it is not clear whether copy or ownership transfer is in effect and I don't see any way you can know without consulting the source/docs for Signal. Anyhow, I now get the first two `move`s. And now I see that `reset_value` is just a local closure, and that's what's being `move`d by the third `move` (for the keydown event). So that's good. Resolving.