Topology ports semantics #855
Conversation
…logy-ports-semantics
…ology-ports-semantics
…ology-ports-semantics
…ology-ports-semantics
…ology-ports-semantics
| override def getUnqualifiedName = node._2.data.name | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type InterfaceInstance = Symbol.ComponentInstance | Symbol.Topology |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed, for consistency, let's make InterfaceInstance a sealed trait if possible.
| c.out -> c.in | ||
| ^ | ||
| error: out is not a port instance of component C | ||
| error: out is not a port instance of interface c |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Should this error message say
interface instance c? - Can we provide a note here saying that c has type C? Otherwise there is a small regression in the quality of the error output.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general for this kind of error, c has to be a topology T, a component instance with component type C, or an interface parameter with interface I, right? Could the error message say "... is not a port instance of topology T/component C/interface I"? That would be clearer and would preserve what we had before.
| ^ | ||
| error: symbol c is not defined | ||
| note: looking for a component instance here | ||
| note: looking for a port interface instance here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this error message say "looking for a component instance, topology, or interface parameter here"? I think that would be clearer.
| match p1 with p2 | ||
| ^ | ||
| error: p2 is not a port instance of component C | ||
| error: p2 is not a port instance of interface C |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change to the error message doesn't look right. A matching specifier occurs in a component definition, not an interface definition.
| loc: Location // The location whether the connection is requested | ||
| ): Result.Result[Unit] = Right(()) | ||
|
|
||
| override def equals(obj: Any): Boolean = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to override equals here? What happens if we use the default equals?
…ology-ports-semantics
This PR implements topology port semantics according to the spec from #748
Interesting Changes
interfaceInstanceUseportMap+specialPortMapwere moved out into a separatePortInterfaceconstruct so that it could be reused inside topologyPortInstance.Topologyfor wrapping ports with a new name to impement topology ports.Closes #745