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 +77 -35
4 changed files with 77 additions and 35 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit fb8e391587 - Show all commits

8
app-proto/main.css
View file

@ -131,10 +131,6 @@ details[open]:has(li) .element-switch::after {
color: var(--text-invalid);
}
.constraint > input[type=checkbox] {
margin: 0px 8px 0px 0px;
}
.constraint > input[type=text] {
color: inherit;
background-color: inherit;
@ -154,6 +150,10 @@ details[open]:has(li) .element-switch::after {
font-style: normal;
}
.constrained > .status::after, details:has(.constrained):not([open]) .status::after {
content: '🔗';
}
.invalid > .status::after, details:has(.invalid):not([open]) .status::after {
content: '⚠';
color: var(--text-invalid);

44
app-proto/src/add_remove.rs
View file

@ -1,7 +1,17 @@
use sycamore::prelude::*;
use web_sys::{console, wasm_bindgen::JsValue};
use crate::{engine, AppState, assembly::{Assembly, Constraint, Element}};
use crate::{
engine,
AppState,
assembly::{
Assembly,
glen marked this conversation as resolved
glen commented 2025-03-08 00:23:06 +00:00
Review
Copy link

In assembly.rs, you put all of the sub-namespaces under a top-level item on a single line, like

    assembly::{Assembly, Element}

whereas here this has been spread across three lines. They should be consistent in format. If it's the same to you, I prefer a formats that balances the desire for fewer linebreaks (to keep a good amount of information visible on screen at one time) with the need for clear organization and readability (which too few linebreaks can engender). That is, I prefer the assembly.rs format.

In assembly.rs, you put all of the sub-namespaces under a top-level item on a single line, like ``` assembly::{Assembly, Element} ``` whereas here this has been spread across three lines. They should be consistent in format. If it's the same to you, I prefer a formats that balances the desire for fewer linebreaks (to keep a good amount of information visible on screen at one time) with the need for clear organization and readability (which too few linebreaks can engender). That is, I prefer the assembly.rs format.
Vectornaut commented 2025-03-08 23:30:50 +00:00
Review
Copy link

In assembly.rs, you put all of the sub-namespaces under a top-level item on a single line […], whereas here this has been spread across three lines. They should be consistent in format.

Good catch. My convention has been to start with each use declaration on one line. If that line gets too long, I switch the outermost braced list from space-separated to newline-separated. Then I do the same thing recursively at lower list levels. The use declarations you noticed break this convention; I've corrected them In commit b9db7a5. I think the convention is followed everywhere else, but I'll keep an eye on it whenever I revise use declarations in future commits.

> In assembly.rs, you put all of the sub-namespaces under a top-level item on a single line […], whereas here this has been spread across three lines. They should be consistent in format. Good catch. My convention has been to start with each `use` declaration on one line. If that line gets too long, I switch the outermost braced list from space-separated to newline-separated. Then I do the same thing recursively at lower list levels. The `use` declarations you noticed break this convention; I've corrected them In commit b9db7a5. I think the convention is followed everywhere else, but I'll keep an eye on it whenever I revise `use` declarations in future commits.
Constraint,
ConstraintRole,
Element
},
engine::Q
};
/* DEBUG */
// load an example assembly for testing. this code will be removed once we've
@ -190,15 +200,23 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
(subject_vec[0].clone(), subject_vec[1].clone())
}
);
let lorentz_prod = create_signal(0.0);
let lorentz_prod_valid = create_signal(false);
let active = create_signal(true);
let measured = state.assembly.elements.map(
move |elts| {
let reps = (
elts[subjects.0].representation.get_clone(),
elts[subjects.1].representation.get_clone()
);
reps.0.dot(&(&*Q * reps.1))
}
);
let desired = create_signal(0.0);
let role = create_signal(ConstraintRole::Measure);
state.assembly.insert_constraint(Constraint {
subjects: subjects,
lorentz_prod: lorentz_prod,
lorentz_prod_text: create_signal(String::new()),
lorentz_prod_valid: lorentz_prod_valid,
active: active,
measured: measured,
desired: desired,
desired_text: create_signal(String::new()),
role: role,
});
state.selection.update(|sel| sel.clear());
@ -212,19 +230,19 @@ pub fn AddRemove() -> View {
&JsValue::from(cst.subjects.0),
&JsValue::from(cst.subjects.1),
&JsValue::from(":"),
&JsValue::from(cst.lorentz_prod.get_untracked())
&JsValue::from(cst.desired.get_untracked())
);
}
});
// update the realization when the constraint becomes active
// and valid, or is edited while active and valid
// update the realization when the observable becomes
// constrained, or is edited while constrained
create_effect(move || {
console::log_1(&JsValue::from(
format!("Constraint ({}, {}) updated", subjects.0, subjects.1)
));
lorentz_prod.track();
if active.get() && lorentz_prod_valid.get() {
desired.track();
if role.with(|r| matches!(r, ConstraintRole::Constrain)) {
state.assembly.realize();
}
});

18
app-proto/src/assembly.rs
View file

@ -111,13 +111,19 @@ impl Element {
}
}
pub enum ConstraintRole {
Measure,
Constrain,
Invalid
}
#[derive(Clone)]
pub struct Constraint {
pub subjects: (ElementKey, ElementKey),
pub lorentz_prod: Signal<f64>,
pub lorentz_prod_text: Signal<String>,
pub lorentz_prod_valid: Signal<bool>,
pub active: Signal<bool>
pub measured: ReadSignal<f64>,
pub desired: Signal<f64>,
pub desired_text: Signal<String>,
pub role: Signal<ConstraintRole>
}
// the velocity is expressed in uniform coordinates
@ -230,11 +236,11 @@ impl Assembly {
let mut gram_to_be = PartialMatrix::new();
self.constraints.with_untracked(|csts| {
for (_, cst) in csts {
if cst.active.get_untracked() && cst.lorentz_prod_valid.get_untracked() {
if cst.role.with_untracked(|role| matches!(role, ConstraintRole::Constrain)) {
let subjects = cst.subjects;
let row = elts[subjects.0].column_index.unwrap();
let col = elts[subjects.1].column_index.unwrap();
gram_to_be.push_sym(row, col, cst.lorentz_prod.get_untracked());
gram_to_be.push_sym(row, col, cst.desired.get_untracked());
}
}
});

42
app-proto/src/outline.rs
View file

@ -8,7 +8,16 @@ use web_sys::{
wasm_bindgen::JsCast
};
use crate::{AppState, assembly, assembly::{Constraint, ConstraintKey, ElementKey}};
use crate::{
AppState,
assembly,
assembly::{
Constraint,
ConstraintKey,
ConstraintRole::*,
ElementKey
}
};
// an editable view of the Lorentz product representing a constraint
#[component(inline_props)]
@ -16,16 +25,22 @@ fn LorentzProductInput(constraint: Constraint) -> View {
view! {
input(
r#type="text",
bind:value=constraint.lorentz_prod_text,
placeholder=constraint.measured.with(|result| result.to_string()),
bind:value=constraint.desired_text,
on:change=move |event: Event| {
let target: HtmlInputElement = event.target().unwrap().unchecked_into();
match target.value().parse::<f64>() {
Ok(lorentz_prod) => batch(|| {
constraint.lorentz_prod.set(lorentz_prod);
constraint.lorentz_prod_valid.set(true);
}),
Err(_) => constraint.lorentz_prod_valid.set(false)
};
let value = target.value();
if value.is_empty() {
constraint.role.set(Measure);
} else {
match target.value().parse::<f64>() {
Ok(desired) => batch(|| {
constraint.desired.set(desired);
constraint.role.set(Constrain);
}),
Err(_) => constraint.role.set(Invalid)
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.
};
}
}
)
}
@ -43,12 +58,15 @@ fn ConstraintOutlineItem(constraint_key: ConstraintKey, element_key: ElementKey)
constraint.subjects.0
};
let other_subject_label = assembly.elements.with(|elts| elts[other_subject].label.clone());
let class = constraint.lorentz_prod_valid.map(
|&lorentz_prod_valid| if lorentz_prod_valid { "constraint" } else { "constraint invalid" }
let class = constraint.role.map(
|role| match role {
Measure => "constraint",
Constrain => "constraint constrained",
Invalid => "constraint invalid"
}
);
view! {
li(class=class.get()) {
input(r#type="checkbox", bind:checked=constraint.active)
div(class="constraint-label") { (other_subject_label) }
LorentzProductInput(constraint=constraint)
div(class="status")