TopCoding

Since Cross Country Coaches Moss and Brandon had us running sprints, I've realized the importance of short-distance running for long-distance training. So I suppose I've always suspected that TopCoder could be worthwhile, even for those of us who don't care about who can implement bubble sort fastest. Still, it lingered at the bottom of my priority queue. I don't strongly enjoy competition so it wouldn't be first-order fun for me, and I never had trouble thinking of more interesting intellectual challenges than speed-writing fizzbuzz.

But, Niniane told me I should use TopCoder, so I updated that priority. I'm not so haughty as to disregard Coach's advice.

Well, it turns out I was wrong about TopCoder. It's not only fizzbuzz: the problems with high point values do require some care with algorithm and datastructure selection. It's also not so much of a race as I'd thought. You get no points for an incorrect solution, and even very late answers (like with 12 hours of padding on a 75 minute problem) still get 30% credit.

I think coding time is just about the least important thing in programming. I'm well aware of the pitfalls of perfectionism and the whole nuanced worse is better concept. But I've very rarely been in a real-world programming situation in which the difference between 15 minutes and 1 hour made any practical difference, aside from labor cost. On the other hand, I've frequently seen that investing a little time in a thoughtful algorithm, test coverage, and an elegant implementation can pay off hugely. Naturally, there are many different assignments to the decision-theoretic parameters here; it's not surprising that TopCoder's scores are so simplistic (and well-suited to their business model).

I'm TopCoding in Java. Of course, I found myself Greenspunning almost immediately. The TopCoder rules explicitly allow code reuse, while penalizing dead code. Still, it feels like cheating to keep a warm Emacs buffer full of map/reduce/foldr/nth/setdefault around. A newbie will have to write and test that code, losing points against the veteran TopCoder for a reason that has nothing to do with skill.

Having attacked the TopCoder measure of programmer performance, I'm ready to praise it. First, the emphasis on speed accords with interview conditions. The high pressure and short duration of an interview is not ideal for sampling anyone's performance, but it's better than any of the alternatives I know. Second, just as in athletic cross-training, I think there's value in practicing against TopCoder's measure. It works against my natural perfectionism and, because it is so different from my daily routine, it helps me to strengthen in areas that may be seldom used and hence relatively inefficient.

TopCoder's FAQs are spartan, and the UI is confusing for me. There lots of sequential number ranges and acronyms, and after some fruitless web browsing/searching, I resorted to trial and error to infer their meanings. There aren't many context menus and the key bindings don't follow my OS standards (⌘-C/⌘-X/⌘-V) or the emacs defaults. Try ctrl-C/ctrl-X/ctrl-V for copy/cut/paste. The code editor is terrible, but for interview prep I'm using it in preference to Emacs; I won't have a kill ring or isearch-forward available at the whiteboard, either.

Nobody is verbally critiquing you as you tap out your TopCoder solutions, so they provide a compiler and a very rudimentary test framework (you can feed your program arbitrary program inputs and see the result along with whatever it wrote to stdout and stderr). If interview prep is your goal, it's probably still a good idea to do some whiteboarding and paper exercises, but I think the TopCoder environment is impoverished enough that you'll have a heightened awareness of your dependence on compiler and test feedback.

TopCoder is organized as a shallow, fixed-depth hierarchy of chat rooms. The leaf nodes are each associated with three problems of varying difficulty and point value. Problem statements give the general form of input and output along with several example i/o pairs and a sentence or two about each. The lowest-valued problem statements give an algorithm in prose. The statements of higher-valued problems give fewer hints. Also, higher-valued problems tend to require more work (compared to a hypothetical lower-valued problem whose hints have been erased).

There are competition rooms and practice rooms; different rules governing your actions apply depending on the context. Specifically, in competitions, there are discrete, synchronized phases for coding, code review, and a final non-interactive test round; these activities are concurrent for practice rooms. The practice rooms are created in anticipation of competitions and disappear later. It's too bad that the number of rooms and hence the number and variety of available practice problems swings so wildly (from hundreds of problems to 3). There is an archive where you can read the problem statements and look at final stats, but solutions (including your own) and the test oracle are unavailable.

Unsurprisingly, TopCoder problems are less overtly mathematical than those of Project Euler. Whereas my main annoyance with Project Euler was tedium associated with thematic repetition (e.g., primality testing), my main annoyance with TopCoder is tedium associated with parsing the regular language of each problem's input. Project Euler emphasizes mathematical insight and your own preferred blend of elegance/efficiency/creativity/..., while TopCoder emphasizes implementation speed. To be clear, "annoyance" is far from a primary adjective I'd use for either site; I recommend them both for pass-times or as interview preparation.

The "summary" button in each chat room shows you the list of everyone's who's been there. For each person, you can see overall experience level, rank w/r/t the room, and status/earned points for each problem. By double-clicking on a score, you can read that person's solution and optionally challenge it by providing an input for which you think it fails; TopCoder will execute the solution against your input and either cancel the other person's points and reward you, or punish you for your false allegation by subtracting points from your score.

My informal survey of submitted solutions shows that most coders leave sloppy mistakes in their final submissions, reflecting the time pressure and lack of incentive for craftsmanship. There are almost no code comments, but the code usually speaks for itself. I usually remove test and debugging code. I don't revise for clarity or efficiency. It is striking to me that apparently I value conceptual focus more highly than most other TopCoders: my solutions tend to explicitly compose well-known algorithms using the modularity features of my chosen language. Being uninterested in competition, I don't plan to destructure my own code, but I wonder if this is a competitive advantage for them? I like to think that under real-world conditions, my approach yields better reusability and code clarity, but I don't really have empirical evidence for that.

If I have inspired you to try TopCoder, beware that opening any problem statement starts its timer, and closing the problem does not pause or stop the timer. I don't exactly regret having sampled problems from various rooms and point levels before starting, but I also don't care about how I rank relative to anyone else.

Version numbers and (D)VCS

I've spent a lot of time this weekend trying to adapt apply-version.nant, originally written for oopsnet and svn, to ormar and mercurial. It wasn't so easy to find guidance from others with similar goals, so hopefully this post makes the information more accessible.

Definitions

The primary purpose of software version numbers is to identify the code. When we distribute to users, the version number gives them a concise reference for use in communicating about bugs and available features.

A secondary purpose is to define a temporal order on distributions. Versions are normally numeric and monotonically increasing; higher versions are newer and hopefully better than older versions.

Conventionally, there is at least some human involvement in assigning version numbers. In proprietary software, concerns about sales normally are important. Often times, the technical issue of compatibility is difficult to treat formally, but human judgment is used to encode compatibility information in version numbers.

But it's also conventional to let the low-order bits of a version number be determined automatically. Whenever build inputs change, the behavior of the software may change, but nobody wants to be bothered incrementing version numbers for routine small changes.

Besides version numbers, it's common to hear of "build numbers." Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, but I think it's useful to distinguish between (a) an identifier for the build input and (b) an identifier for the build event. Some people use (b) as a more convenient proxy for (a), and some people apparently really care about (b) itself, although I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because on some teams deployment is part of the build process*, and it's nice to have a formal record of deployments.

Theory and practice

I've used Subversion for nearly my whole career so far. It's a centralized version control system and sensibly enough it identifies historical events with natural numbers; revision 0 is repository creation. So, svn revision numbers are a very convenient basis for version numbers. Just check for consistency of the wc with a revision from the repository and use that revision number for the low-order version bits. Consistency between wc and repository for svn is a question of (a) uncommitted changes and (b) files or directories within the wc at different revisions.

This is a bit harder to do with some other centralized version control systems. In SCCS, revision numbers (SIDs) apply not to repositories but to individual files. Microsoft TFS has SVN-style revision numbers that they call "changeset numbers," but their implementation choices and tools make it difficult and expensive to answer the wc-repository consistency question. But fundamentally, in a cvcs, there's a global clock and that can serve as a basis for version numbering. In every cvcs I've seen, it's practical to use it that way although it might be easier in some cases (svn) and harder in others (tfs).

For distributed version control systems, we have no global clock. Fundamentally, events are temporally ordered only by causal relationships, so you can really only establish the primary property for version numbers: identifying build inputs. There's no general way to establish the secondary property that allows users to compare version numbers and decide which is newer. And yet, the mercurial project itself produces monotonic version numbers! How do they do it? Apparently by manually tagging.

How important is temporal ordering really? Certainly the most important thing is the capability for repeatable builds. Some DVCS projects have concise identifiers for build inputs; in hg and git we have hashcodes. Unfortunately for those of us on the .NET platform, Microsoft provides only 4 * 16 bits of space for version numbers in their assembly metadata specification. This isn't nearly enough for hg 160 bit changeset ids (though it could accommodate the potentially ambiguous 48 bit short form), especially if we want to use one or more of those four fields for encoding compatibility data.

A common special case

There's a very common special case of projects using dvcs for which we can establish an objective order on versions. There's often an official repository, whose event history meets our need.

Well that's fine in theory, but is it practical? Unfortunately for me, hg doesn't allow remote queries of a given repository's local timestamps ("revision numbers"). I hope that's due to an efficiency trade-off and not just a pedantic effort ("these revision numbers aren't guaranteed to match those in your clone; use changeset ids instead!").

The good news is that in hg, revision numbers consistency is preserved under clone and pull operations. If you commit in your repository, you may irreconcilably lose consistency, but as long as you abstain from making changes you and the other repo will agree on the bijective function between revision numbers and changeset ids. So my plan for .NET assembly versioning in my googlecode hg repositories is to use a pristine clone for official builds and at least one separate clone for feature development and bug fixes.

*For the IT web apps I've worked on, we had automated deployment as part of our CI routine, but we were satisfied to have an svn branch per deployment target. Actually, we had one svn branch per deployment target equivalence class representative. Really we had a small number of user communities (e.g., end-users, beta-testers, trainees, programmers), and we had a branch for each of them and the server clusters for each. (back)

What I did on my summer vacation

I spent the second week of September 2009 in Yellowstone Country. This is my trip report.

My traveling companions were my parents, my brother, and his girlfriend. We met at BZN, where we rented a minivan for the drive to Yellowstone House. It was a rainy afternoon but between showers we caught glimpses of that signature Montana light that plays over the foothills and dramatically highlights the mountain peaks. We ate dinner at the Chico Dining Room, always a safe bet for fine dining. Yellowstone House has wifi and a PowerMac G4.


For the next two days we went flyfishing with Grossenbacher Guides Bill, Bo, Brad Ehrnman, Brett Seng, and Brian Grossenbacher.

The thing to love or hate about flyfishing is that it emphasizes technique. The motion of the fly is determined not by its own weight (as it is in baitfishing) by the weight distributed along your line; there is physical complexity here that corresponds to a high degree of choice in casting. Beyond that, there is a pretty large space of materials and configurations in the flies, and the trout discriminate taking into account the season, time of day, and past experience. I'm a novice, but more experienced flyfishermen explicitly use ecological knowledge in addition to recent observations of insect activity and fish feeding patterns. So, I can recommend flyfishing if you enjoy skill acquisition.

Someone once expressed surprise that I'd participate in an activity that involves cruelty to fish. Well, I've not noticed a strong trend either way among baitfishermen, but every flyfishermen I've encountered has expressed concern for the health and well-being of the fish. They remove barbs from hooks in order to minimize injury during catch-and-release fishing, they take care to handle fish gently without damaging gills, and they release carefully. Those practices satisfy my moral compass.

We were not the only ones enjoying the river those days; we also observed eagles, ospreys, otters, and mergansers fishing.

On Monday we ate at the Pine Creek Lodge, and it was good. I will say though that the cinnamon fajita tastes like it sounds.

On Tuesday we drove to the North entrance of Yellowstone National Park at Gardiner, MT. On the way through Mammoth Hot Springs to Old Faithful Inn we saw elk, mule deer, bison, and a black bear but very sadly no moose. We stopped off to hike up the Mount Washburn Fire Lookout, where we saw many chipmunks, a couple of marmots, and some big horn sheep. Unfortunately Dad stopped about a half mile from the summit due to pain in his knees.

At Old Faithful Inn we had drinks and bar food at the bar and then dinner in the Dining Room. I was disappointed that the Crow's Nest is off-limits, but I did see Old Faithful erupt. Our rooms were in a renovated section (early 1990s), so we had private bathrooms.

On Wednesday we hiked half way to
Artist Point along the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. Dad stayed back. The canyonlands supposedly harbor moose, but not surprisingly we didn't see them along the heavily trafficked trail. We drove to view a petrified tree and then we drove on to the Lamar Valley. There we photographed a buffalo at close range and did some fishing in the Lamar River, a tributary of the Yellowstone. At one point I misjudged the depth of the river and waded into chest-high water, drowning my phone.

We tried to eat at Helen's, home of the infamous Hateful Burger, but it was closed and for sale. Instead we ate at Zona Rosa in Livingston, where we had superb Latin American food at very reasonable prices. They were new at that time and did not accept credit cards or serve alcoholic beverages. Nearby landmarks include an enormous Taco John's sign and a car/truck wash.

Thursday we did guided fishing on the Madison River. The fish are generally larger and smarter than those of the Yellowstone. We caught very few whitefish, but a number of large trout. We ate at the Chico Saloon, which is definitely not served by the same kitchen as the dining room, while we observed some sporting event on TV.

Friday we hung around Yellowstone House, doing a little fishing from the bank of the Yellowstone River and reading and puzzle-solving. We had dinner again at Chico Hot Springs Dining Room, and then back to Yellowstone House for our last night in Montana.

We didn't see any grizzly bears this year, and I still have yet to see wild wolves or moose. Maybe next time.

The trust relationship between the primary domain and the trusted domain failed.

Over the past month, I've spent a couple of hours puzzling over a bug in the implementation of Microsoft's System.Security.Principal.WindowsPrincipal.IsInRole. I want to say something about the general problem and then I'll talk specifically about this problem instance and how I worked around it.

The general form of the problem is something I often cited in code reviews at Anheuser-Busch. Now I believe that Microsoft owes its success much more to salesmanship than engineering ability, but this is a high-profile product with years of history in the field, so I'm surprised the bug has survived so long. I guess it's worth publishing my advice (which I'm sure did not originate with me):

1. Throw or propagate exceptions at the right level of abstraction. The Java language designers were on to something with checked exceptions: exceptions really can be regarded as part of your API (see also criticism linked at c2). If you have a method String Profile.GetSetting(String) with two implementations, one of which uses ADO.NET for relational database storage while the other uses System.IO.File for filesystem storage, then callers should never see System.Data.Common.DbExceptions. If, as the maintainer of Profile.GetSetting, you anticipate ADO.NET or System.IO exceptions, then you should catch them and throw exceptions of some more appropriate type(s). It's OK and usually a good idea to use what you catch to initialize the InnerException property of what you throw: that's useful diagnostic information. But, you should make the effort to wrap the exceptions you propagate when doing so mitigates a leaky abstraction.


2. Use distinct exception types for distinct equivalence classes of conditions you think callers might reasonably treat in different ways. I think it's helpful to think about Lisp conditions, which generalize exceptions, when you make design decisions involving errors.


3. Document the exceptions you throw.

And without further ado, the specifics:

Bug 4541

Summary:	The trust relationship between the primary domain and the trusted domain failed.
Product:	REDACTED	Reporter:	Foy, Sean
Component:	triage	Assignee:	Foy, Sean
Status:	ASSIGNED
Severity:	blocker	CC:	michael.jorgensen@REDACTED
Priority:	P3
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
URL:	http://tahaze-ww07.REDACTED/REDACTED/requests/19791117T120000?requestor=sean.foy@REDACTED
Whiteboard:
Time tracking:	Orig. Est. Actual Hours Hours Worked Hours Left %Complete Gain 8.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 90 6.9
Deadline:

Description Foy, Sean 2009-09-13 19:08:54 CDT

Steps to reproduce:
0. logout if you're not using Windows Authentication.
1. create a request
2. follow the link to the request from the assignment page
3. authenticate (implicitly or otherwise) using Windows Authentication
Expected results: request edit page
Actual results: authorization (IsInRole predicate evaluation on a
WindowsPrincipal) fails.

System.SystemException: The trust relationship between the primary domain and the trusted domain failed.

at
System.Security.Principal.NTAccount.TranslateToSids(IdentityReferenceCollection
sourceAccounts, Boolean& someFailed)
at System.Security.Principal.NTAccount.Translate(IdentityReferenceCollection
sourceAccounts, Type targetType, Boolean& someFailed)
at System.Security.Principal.NTAccount.Translate(IdentityReferenceCollection
sourceAccounts, Type targetType, Boolean forceSuccess)
at System.Security.Principal.WindowsPrincipal.IsInRole(String role)
at MVCUtils.IsInRole(String role) in
c:\documents-and-settings\sean.foy\my-documents\REDACTED\MvcUtils.cs:line 218
at REDACTED.REDACTED.IsInRole(String rolename) in
c:\documents-and-settings\sean.foy\my-documents\REDACTED\REDACTED.cs:line 284
at REDACTED.Viewee03e5938d284b4d944019fc1e9c8130.RenderViewLevel0() in
c:\documents-and-settings\sean.foy\my-documents\REDACTED\Views\Request\requestform.spark:line
20
at REDACTED.Viewee03e5938d284b4d944019fc1e9c8130.RenderView(TextWriter writer) in
c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Temporary ASP.NET
Files\REDACTED\930b9661\fd62837e49004099a1fddf1e5288ae22-1.cs:line 1240
at Spark.Web.Mvc.SparkView.Render(ViewContext viewContext, TextWriter
writer)
at System.Web.Mvc.ViewResultBase.ExecuteResult(ControllerContext context)
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionResult(ControllerContext
controllerContext, ActionResult actionResult)
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass11.<invokeactionresultwithfilters>b__e()
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionResultFilter(IResultFilter
filter, ResultExecutingContext preContext, Func`1 continuation)
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.<>c__DisplayClass11.<>c__DisplayClass13.<invokeactionresultwithfilters>b__10()
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionResultWithFilters(ControllerContext
controllerContext, IList`1 filters, ActionResult actionResult)
at System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAction(ControllerContext
controllerContext, String actionName)
at System.Web.Mvc.Controller.ExecuteCore()
at System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.Execute(RequestContext requestContext)
at
System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.System.Web.Mvc.IController.Execute(RequestContext
requestContext)
at System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase httpContext)
at System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext httpContext)
at
System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.System.Web.IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext
httpContext)
at
System.Web.HttpApplication.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute()
at System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean&
completedSynchronously)

REDACTED, Version=1.0.4835.11, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null version
1.0.4835.11

Comment 1 Foy, Sean 2009-09-13 20:08:54 CDT

Additional hours worked: 1.0 There are no documented exceptions for WindowsPrincipal.IsInRole and although Google finds many reports of this exception, the most promising resolutions are vaguely described patches from Microsoft for SharePoint. But empirically I've found that I get reasonable answers for queries of the form
p.IsInRole(@"domain\group") and
p.IsInRole(@"group@domain")
where the domain name can be any non-empty string. But I get this exception for queries of the form
p.IsInRole(@"group").
Evidently IsInRole expects a domain name and throws this exception when none is present.

And here's the patch:

Index: MvcUtils.cs
===================================================================
--- MvcUtils.cs (revision 4851)
+++ MvcUtils.cs (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
+using System.Security.Principal;
using System.Text;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using System.Web;
@@ -214,8 +215,22 @@
return result.ToString();
}

+ public static Boolean IsInRole(IPrincipal p, String role) {
+ try {
+ return p.Identity.IsAuthenticated && p.IsInRole(role);
+ }
+ catch (SystemException e) {
+ // see bug 4541
+ if (!e.Message.StartsWith("The trust relationship between the primary domain and the trusted domain failed.")) {
+ throw;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+ }
+ }
+
public static Boolean IsInRole(String role) {
- return HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated && HttpContext.Current.User.IsInRole(role);
+ return IsInRole(HttpContext.Current.User, role);
}
}

Index: TestMvcUtils.cs
===================================================================
--- TestMvcUtils.cs (revision 4851)
+++ TestMvcUtils.cs (working copy)
@@ -175,6 +175,32 @@
r => authorized.IsInRole(r)));
}

+ private System.Security.Principal.WindowsPrincipal getWindowsPrincipal() {
+ return
+ new System.Security.Principal.WindowsPrincipal(
+ System.Security.Principal.WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent());
+
+ }
+
+ [Test]
+ public void WindowsPrincipalIsInRoleExpectsDomain() {
+ var p = getWindowsPrincipal();
+ try {
+ p.IsInRole("whatever");
+ Assert.Fail("maybe we can simplify MvcUtils.IsInRole after all");
+ }
+ catch (SystemException) {
+ //expected
+ }
+ }
+
+ [Test]
+ public void IsInRoleToleratesAbsenceOfDomains() {
+ var p = getWindowsPrincipal();
+ MVCUtils.IsInRole(p, @"domain\whatever");
+ MVCUtils.IsInRole(p, "whatever@domain");
+ }
+
public Mock<httpcontextbase> mockContext(String applicationRoot, String requestUrl) {</httpcontextbase>
var appRoot = new Uri(applicationRoot);
var ctx = new Mock<httpcontextbase>();</httpcontextbase>
Index: Web.config
===================================================================
--- Web.config (revision 4851)
+++ Web.config (working copy)
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
<add key="ActiveDirectoryForestName" value="REDACTED"></add>
<add key="ActiveDirectoryUserName" value="REDACTED\svc.tahaze.websql"></add>
<add key="ActiveDirectoryPassword" value="REDACTED"></add>
- <add key="map-to-role-msl" value="REDACTED_Form_Editors"></add>
- <add key="map-to-role-admin" value="REDACTED_Admins"></add>
+ <add key="map-to-role-msl" value="REDACTED\REDACTED_Form_Editors"></add>
+ <add key="map-to-role-admin" value="REDACTED\REDACTED_Admins"></add>
<add key="MVCAuthnz.CookieAuthenticationHttpModule.signingKey" value="REDACTED"></add>
<add key="seanfoy.oopsnet.assemblyQualifiedName" value="seanfoy.oopsnet.ASPNetErrorHandler,seanfoy.oopsnet"></add>
<add key="seanfoy.oopsnet.handlerName" value="handleError"></add>
@@ -84,7 +84,6 @@


-->
-
<system.web></system.web>
<httpmodules></httpmodules>
<add name="UrlRoutingModule" type="System.Web.Routing.UrlRoutingModule, System.Web.Routing"></add>


Paging for Mutable Data

Many web applications provide segmented result sets in response to queries. This approach can conserve server-side effort when users decide to reformulate a query or use partial results rather than actually attending to all the results. Even if a user will eventually demand the complete set of results, paging can smooth the demand/time graph, lowering the peaks.

It's easy to find library support for paging, but it's rare to find good support for paging mutable data. Typically the library provides a set of results given an integer offset and page size. Another way to characterize this functionality is to say that the library does integer arithmetic. I don't object to procedural abstraction, but it seems to me that this is not only simple but simplistic.

We can always enumerate our datasets, but I think that users don't normally care about specific offsets. I for one normally care about the whole set of results that satisfy my query. Or at least I think I do, until I see from the results that my query spec wasn't quite right. Anyway, I think we users normally formulate queries in terms of the problem domain, not in terms of sequences of integers. I don't normally care about the eleventh or the twenty sixth result because of its ordinal rank; I just want the next element of my dataset.

So where's the problem? We know that we can setup a one-to-one correspondence between integers and countable data sets, so why not use convenient integers to specify pages? As long as the data are immutable, or users are tolerant of certain inaccuracies, we can use integers to identify pages.

But, in general the data might be changing even as users peruse the results. Suppose I specify a query q, which predicate is satisfied by the following ordered result elements at time 0: <A, C, E, G, I, J>. At time 1, F begins to satisfy q so the result set becomes <A, C, E, F, G, I, J>. If my page size is 2 and I was looking at the second page at time 0, what should I see when I proceed to the third page at time 2? Do I see G and I because results_t2[(page - 1) * size] = results_t2[4] identifies G? Would the apparent duplicate result in that case be confusing or just annoying? Should I see I and J because I started viewing at t_0 and therefore my page request should be interpreted as results_t0[4] = I?

Suppose an item I've already seen is deleted as I page through results. Will I see the item that would have been first on the next page at all?

If we're going to avoid anomalous disappearances and false duplicates, we can't rely on naively recomputing the function from integers to results on-demand. Perhaps we can store history and use an (page-number, timestamp) pair to index our pages.

If the cost of storing history is too great, there are compromises available aside from allowing both false apparent duplicates and omissions of elements that have existed throughout. We can allow repetition in order to avoid erroneous omission, or we can allow omission to avoid false repetition. Finally, if we disallow duplicates, we can use observable properties of the elements themselves as page indices. Often, (apparent) duplicates are undesirable anyway:

Summaries are often preferred over raw data

A	B
pepperoni	pepperoni: 4
mushroom	mushroom: 2
pepperoni	cheese: 1
mushroom
pepperoni
cheese
pepperoni

In my experience, the most common scenario involves concurrent usage, mutable underlying data, and two laws of user expectation: (1) if an item satisfied the query predicate continuously from before the query was issued to after the user reached the last page of results, the user should see the item and (2) one unchanging item should appear at most once in the pages.

Where these requirements are satisfiable, we'd like to encapsulate and reuse the implementation details. The interface should work in domain terms: given a data element, total order relation, and window size as input, it could provide the next n elements.

The main idea here is pretty simple, both in conception and in implementation. Part of the motivation for this blog post though was to discuss the details of client interface design and testing.

Here's my first test design for the core functionality:


[Test]
public void paging() {
const int count =
(int)(
// first page: stable + deleted
(pageSize + 1.0) * 3.0 / (1 + 1 + 0) +
// second page: stable + deleted + ins
(pageSize + 1.0) * 3.0 / (1 + 1 + 0) +
// third page: stable + ins
(pageSize + 1.0) * 3.0 / (1 + 1 + 0));
var items = Enumerable.Range(0, count).ToList();
var stable =
Enumerable.Where(
items,
x => x % 3 == 0).ToList();
var inserting =
Enumerable.Where(
items,
x => x % 3 == 1).ToList();
var deleting =
Enumerable.Where(
items,
x => x % 3 == 2).ToList();
var attendance =
Enumerable.ToDictionary(
items,
x => x,
x => 0);
try {
foreach (var i in stable) {
persist(i);
}
foreach (var i in deleting) {
persist(i);
}
int timer = 0;
foreach (var p in getPages()) {
foreach (var i in p) {
++attendance[i];
}
if (timer == 1) {
foreach (var ins in inserting) {
persist(ins);
}
}
else if (timer == 2) {
foreach (var del in deleting) {
delete(del);
}
}
++timer;
}
Assert.IsTrue(timer > 3, "There were too few pages in this test to see both kinds of concurrency anomaly.");
Assert.IsTrue(
Enumerable.All(
stable,
x => attendance[x] == 1),
"Every item that is present throughout the process should be seen exactly once.");
Assert.IsTrue(
Enumerable.Any(
deleting,
x => attendance[x] == 0),
"Some item deleted during this test should not have been seen. This may indicate eager retrieval of pages, which is isn't feasible in general (for large datasets).");
Assert.IsFalse(
Enumerable.Any(
items,
x => attendance[x] > 1),
"No item should be seen twice.");
// it's OK if items inserted during the test are seen
}
finally {
foreach (var i in items) {
delete(i);
}
}
}


For me, the best thing about this code is its strong focus on two key axioms. I partition all possible inputs in such a way as to demonstrate those, and then I arrange to draw samples from those partitions in what I hope is pretty unobtrusive way. I check that I've covered the necessary cases and then I show that the axioms are true for my sample data. getPages simulates sequential uses of the paging abstraction by a client:


protected override IEnumerable<IEnumerable<int>> getPages() {
const int pageSize = 10;
LocalItem memento = null;
IEnumerable<LocalItem> p;
do {
var slicedCriteria =
Potpourri.Page<LocalItem>.page(
DetachedCriteria.For(typeof(LocalItem)),
new [] {"itemNumber"},
memento);
p = LocalItem.SlicedFindAll(0, pageSize + 1, slicedCriteria);
memento =
Enumerable.LastOrDefault(p);
yield return
Potpourri.slice(
Enumerable.Select(
p,
i => elementToInt(i)),
0,
pageSize);
} while (Enumerable.Count(p) > pageSize);
}


Details: in real life this code runs against shared relational database instances, but for testing purposes I execute against SQLite for isolation. This test occurs in an abstract TestFixture with two concrete subclasses, one of whose getPages method is shown above.

The other uses the raw NHibernate windowing primitives in the naive way; that test class is marked with the IgnoreAttribute because that approach is doomed. I actually started by writing that test case as an executable demonstration of the motivation for the less obvious technique.

Here's my second test design. I think on balance it's actually less readable than the first attempt. I wonder how many people would agree?


[Test]
public void insertionSansDuplicates() {
insertion(fetchPageByValueEquality);
}

[Test]
[ExpectedException(typeof(DuplicateDetectedException))]
public void insertionAnomalies() {
insertion(fetchPageByOffset);
}

[Test]
public void deletionSansSkips() {
deletion(fetchPageByValueEquality);
}

[Test]
[ExpectedException(typeof(AnomalyDetectedException))]
public void deletionAnomalies() {
deletion(fetchPageByOffset);
}


Again, I wrote working test code for both straightforward, broken use of primitives and for the approach that suits my needs.

Here's how I address the two kinds of trouble that can result from trying to use offsets for paging in the face of concurrent modification:


private class AnomalyDetectedException : Exception {}
private class DuplicateDetectedException : AnomalyDetectedException {}
private void insertion(FetchPage fetchPage) {
var q = DetachedCriteria.For<Beer>();
var O = new [] {"ABV", "BrewDate", "Variety"};
Paging.AddOrder(q, O);
var seenit = new HashSet<Beer>();
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var page =
fetchPage(
s,
q,
O,
null,
pageSize + 1);
foreach (Beer i in Enumerable.TakeWhile(page, (elt, i) => i < pageSize)) {
if (seenit.Contains(i)) throw new DuplicateDetectedException();
seenit.Add(i);
}
var first = (Beer)page[0];
var nouveau =
new Beer {
Variety = "not" + first.Variety,
BrewDate = first.BrewDate,
ABV = first.ABV / 2};
s.Save(nouveau);
s.Flush();
page =
fetchPage(s, q, O, Enumerable.Last(page), pageSize);
foreach (Beer i in page) {
if (seenit.Contains(i)) throw new DuplicateDetectedException();
seenit.Add(i);
}
}
}
}

private void deletion(FetchPage fetchPage) {
var q = DetachedCriteria.For<Beer>();
var O = new [] {"ABV", "BrewDate", "Variety"};
Paging.AddOrder(q, O);
var expected = new HashSet<Object>();
var actual = new HashSet<Object>();
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var page = fetchPage(s, q, O, null, pageSize);
foreach (var i in page) expected.Add(i);
foreach (var i in page) actual.Add(i);
foreach (var i in fetchPage(s, q, O, Enumerable.Last(page), pageSize)) {
expected.Add(i);
}
s.Delete(page[0]);
s.Flush();
foreach (var i in fetchPage(s, q, O, Enumerable.Last(page), pageSize)) {
actual.Add(i);
}

actual.SymmetricExceptWith(expected);
if (0 != actual.Count) throw new AnomalyDetectedException();
}
}
}


The test data are much less carefully prepared:


[TestFixtureSetUp]
public void setup() {
Persistence.rebuildDB();
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
Assert.That(s.Linq<Bottle>().Count(), Is.GreaterThan(pageSize));
Assert.That(s.Linq<Beer>().Count(), Is.GreaterThan(pageSize));
}
}
}


That rebuildDB method isn't particularly geared towards the paging problem. It's really intended for use with a broader class of NHibernate-related addons.

I also have boundary test cases:


[Test]
public void empty() {
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var max =
Queryable.Max(
s.Linq<Bottle>(),
i => i.Serial);
var source =
DetachedCriteria.For(
typeof(Bottle));
Assert.IsFalse(
Enumerable.Any(
Paging.Page(
s,
source,
new [] {"Serial"},
new Bottle { Serial = max + 1 },
pageSize)));
}
}
}

[Test]
public void singleton() {
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var max =
Queryable.Max(
s.Linq<Bottle>(),
i => i.Serial);
var source =
DetachedCriteria.For(
typeof(Bottle)).
AddOrder(Order.Asc("Serial"));
Assert.AreEqual(
1,
Enumerable.Count(
Paging.Page(
s,
source,
new [] {"Serial"},
new Bottle { Serial = max },
pageSize)));
}
}
}


When there's no concurrent data modification, we get equivalent results with the simpler, direct use of NHibernate primitives as with the more complicated use of my paging abstraction:


[Test]
public void naturals() {
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var Q =
Enumerable.Select(
Enumerable.Range(0, 2),
x => DetachedCriteria.For<Bottle>().AddOrder(Order.Asc("Serial"))).ToArray();
Assert.AreEqual(
Q[0].GetExecutableCriteria(s).SetMaxResults(pageSize).List<Bottle>(),
Paging.Page<Bottle>(s, Q[1], new [] {"Serial"}, null, pageSize));
}
}
}

[Test]
public void beers() {
using (var factory = Persistence.makeSessionFactory()) {
using (var s = factory.OpenSession()) {
var O = new [] {"ABV", "BrewDate", "Variety"};
// ICriterion instances are mutable and don't
// expose a copy constructor or clone method,
// so we must make two criteria, just alike.
var Q =
Enumerable.Select(
Enumerable.Range(0, 2),
x => DetachedCriteria.For<Beer>()).ToArray();
foreach (var q in Q) {
Paging.AddOrder(q, O);
}
Assert.AreEqual(
Q[0].GetExecutableCriteria(s).SetMaxResults(pageSize).List<Beer>(),
Paging.Page(s, Q[1], O, null, pageSize));
}
}
}


I welcome your comments and criticism. Please see ormar for details or to publish your own code review.

vogon fodder

In this post, I show-and-tell about automated paper-pushing.

I spent considerable effort at work last week building something that is minimally useful. I am preoccupied by the conflict between the demands of professionalism and the idiotic/cynical mockery of professionalism that is usual (though not universal) in large organizations. But I've got to eat and I should focus on problems I can realistically solve. For now, let's accept the demands of management without question and focus on how to satisfy the demands at minimum cost to human life. In the words of Steve Jobs:

Well, let's say you can shave 10 seconds off of the boot time. Multiply that by five million users and thats 50 million seconds, every single day. Over a year, that's probably dozens of lifetimes. So if you make it boot ten seconds faster, you've saved a dozen lives. That's really worth it, don't you think?

Your manager emails you an MSWord document and asks you fill it out once per software deployment. It should list every affected "object" and indicate when if ever "User" has been notified, when and who if ever "BAM" has approved, and it should reference the other paperwork associated with the project. What do you do?

Clearly, the right answer involves CI and LaTeX. In my case: svn, ccnet, Bugzilla, python, xslt, ruby, LaTeX, perl, and pdf.

We've been using CI with SVN to do deployments since 2004. There's a branch for each deployment target, and a CI project associated with each of those branches. The CI builds usually correspond to a single commit, but we don't insist on that; when commits come fast enough we go for speed over precision in who's "on the hook" for breaking changes. So the first problem is to find the union of affected "objects" over the set of svn commits in the deployment.

The term "object" is taken from the argot of the RPGers, who are the oldest and largest group of software people at our company. For them, "object" often refers to a printed tabular summary of data but more generally can refer to a program for any purpose. The usual custom outside the RPG tribe is to list as "objects" ui elements, but sometimes instead OO classes or source files are listed. It's not worth being too careful about this, because the real goal is pro forma compliance with a vague demand for documentation. Users basically want release notes, and engineers already get precise, accurate, and efficient answers to technical questions from svn and Bugzilla. The form really just needs to exist and, at a glance, to appear normal.

Our CI system CruiseControl.NET has a feature called modification writer that renders metadata about a build to XML. This provides a list of added, deleted, and textually-modified files for each commit that's new since the last build:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<ArrayOfModification xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<Modification>
  <Type>Modified</Type>
  <FileName>ccnet-self.config</FileName>
  <FolderName>/ccnet</FolderName>
  <ModifiedTime>2009-07-24T10:23:08.162158-05:00</ModifiedTime>
  <UserName>sean.foy</UserName>
  <ChangeNumber>4413</ChangeNumber>
  <Version />
  <Comment>whitespace
[Bug 50,51,3783]</Comment>
  <IssueUrl>https://bugzilla.thcg.net/buglist.cgi?bug_id=50,51,3783</IssueUrl>
</Modification>
</ArrayOfModification>

We integrated SVN and Bugzilla in 2004, and so since that time we've been able to correlate commits with bugs. This gives us informal commentary about the motivations and the design considerations for each commit, plus metadata including who was involved in the process, how much time each of us spent, whether we paired or got code review, whether dbas got involved, who approved deployment, etc. Well, at least in principle. Actually, only one or two projects have ever really taken advantage of these capabilities. But the point is that this metadata fits the purported goal of our paperwork, and it's useful and easily accessible, and it exists for at least one project. It's the best we can do, and it's pretty good. So we've got to use it.

Python is a fairly pleasant language to work in and nobody's terrified by its syntax. It also has great libraries for screen-scraping. Accordingly, we used a python program to augment ccnet's modifications xml. We read the ccnet xml and use the bugtraq standard to write back the set of relevant bugs:

<ArrayOfModification>
<Modification>
  <Type>Modified</Type>
  <FileName>ccnet-self.config</FileName>
  <FolderName>/ccnet</FolderName>
  <ModifiedTime>2009-07-24T10:23:08.162158-05:00</ModifiedTime>
  <UserName>sean.foy</UserName>
  <ChangeNumber>4413</ChangeNumber>
  <Version />
  <Comment>whitespace
[Bug 50,51,3783]</Comment>
  <IssueUrl>https://bugzilla.thcg.net/buglist.cgi?bug_id=50,51,3783</IssueUrl>
  <database />
  <flags>
    <flag id="1882" name="QCApproved" setter="michael.jorgensen@covidien.com" status="+" />
  </flags>
</Modification>
</ArrayOfModification>

Now we have all the answers we need to fill out our worksheet in XML. We just need to produce MSWord output (good luck). Well, MSWord probably isn't really necessary. That's what's expected, but also we should keep in mind that the goal is pro forma compliance. This document's real use is to ward off auditors, so it just needs to exist and not look unusual. So, we want to typeset XML? Obviously we should consider DocBook, XSL-FO, and LaTeX. I looked into XSL-FO c. 2001 and DocBook c. 2002, but I know LaTeX best. I wanted to spend less than 4 hours on this little project, so I was satisfied to use LaTeX.

For processing XML, you could do worse than XSLT. It can be particularly nice as a declarative template specification: "make my input look like this". So, I used xslt to process the bz-augmented ccnet modifications xml into LaTeX:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" version="2.0" xmlns:fn="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" xmlns:smf="http://seanfoy.thcg.net/xslt">
<xsl:output method="text" />

<xsl:param name="asr">application service request number</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="builddate">the date these changes became effective</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="trunkdeploymenttarget">unc path</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="trunkdbserver">hostname</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="trunkdbname">dbname</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="productiondeploymenttarget">unc path</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="productiondbserver">hostname</xsl:param>
<xsl:param name="productiondbname">dbname</xsl:param>

<xsl:function name="smf:latexlit">
  <xsl:param name="raw" />
  <xsl:value-of select="fn:replace(fn:replace($raw, '([$&amp;%#_{}~^\\])', '\\$1'), '\\\\', '\$\\backslash\$')" />
</xsl:function>

<xsl:template match="@*|node()">
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="/">
  <xsl:text>
\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{latexsym}

\usepackage[document]{ragged2e}
\usepackage{wordlike}
\renewcommand{\familydefault}{phv} % Arial
\sloppy
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\subsection}{\@startsection%
{subsection}%
{1}
{0em}
{-\baselineskip}%
{0.5\baselineskip}%
{\bfseries\LARGE\sffamily}}
\makeatother

\author{Sean Foy}
\title{Sample}

\begin{document}
\section*{Internet/Intranet Production Move Request}
\textbf{ASR /Track-it WO\#:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($asr)" /><xsl:text>\hfill\textbf{Move Date:}

\textbf{Requestor/ User Notification Sent:} $\Box$ \textbf{Dated:}

\subsection*{Object(s): $\Box$Web \qquad $\Box$WebMethods (WM)}
\begin{longtable}{|l|l|}\hline
  </xsl:text>
  <xsl:for-each select="ArrayOfModification/Modification">
    <xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(FileName)" />
    <xsl:text>&amp; -r</xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(ChangeNumber)" />
    <xsl:if test="fn:not(fn:empty(IssueUrl))">
      <xsl:text> (</xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(IssueUrl)" /><xsl:text>)</xsl:text>
    </xsl:if>
    <xsl:text> \\</xsl:text>
  </xsl:for-each>
  <xsl:text>\hline
\end{longtable}

\subsection*{DB Object(s):}
\begin{longtable}{|l|l|}\hline
  </xsl:text>
  <xsl:for-each select="ArrayOfModification/Modification[database]">
    <xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(FileName)" />
    <xsl:text>&amp; -r</xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(ChangeNumber)" />
    <xsl:if test="fn:not(fn:empty(IssueUrl))">
      <xsl:text> (</xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit(IssueUrl)" /><xsl:text>)</xsl:text>
    </xsl:if>
    <xsl:text> \\</xsl:text>
  </xsl:for-each>
  <xsl:text>
    \hline
\end{longtable}

\subsection*{Deployment Servers:}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}\hline
     &amp;
     Development&amp;
     Production\\\hline
     Web:&amp;
     \textbf{UNC:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($trunkdeploymenttarget)" /><xsl:text>&amp;
     \textbf{UNC:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($productiondeploymenttarget)" /><xsl:text>\\\hline
     DB:&amp;
     \textbf{Server:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($trunkdbserver)" /><xsl:text> \textbf{Database:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($trunkdbname)" /><xsl:text>&amp;
     \textbf{Server:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($productiondbserver)" /><xsl:text> \textbf{Database:} </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="smf:latexlit($productiondbname)" /><xsl:text>\\\hline
     WM:&amp;
     \textbf{UNC:}            &amp;
     \textbf{UNC:}            \\\hline
\end{tabular}

\rule{\textwidth}{0.25em}

\textbf{Move Approved by BAM}:

Signature: \underline{\makebox[2in][l]{}}

Date: \underline{\makebox[1in][l]{}}

\end{document}
  </xsl:text>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

LaTeX is based on Don Knuth's TeX typesetting system. It's serious business: Turing-complete and designed specifically for the needs of the world's most demanding typographical experts.

For a while I thought about merging the bug and svn data here in LaTeX. My TeX-hacking skills are very weak now so I had in mind the python package. As I escaped for XSL the escape for LaTeX of the escape for Python of the LaTeX output I wanted, I thought I was probably making a mistake. LaTeX is great for typesetting, and capable of general computation, but it's awkward to express the heavy-lifting there (even in an embedded language). The python package is probably better used tactically, for simple comprehensions and the like -- not for elaborating significantly on the structure of the LaTeX markup.

We must compile LaTeX to obtain our output (normally PostScript or PDF). I use a perl script, latexmk, to manage the multi-phase compilation process and keep track of cleaning up the intermediate products.

So we want to combine (((xml and Buzilla) by python to xml) and xsl) by xslt to LaTeX by latexmk to PDF). We need to process our inputs and intermediate products in topological order; this is a build process. I've used make before, but it's a bit crufty. I prefer NAnt, whose XML syntax is more explicit and discoverable. From what I've seen of rake, I like it better than NAnt. NAnt's a priori boundary between its implementation and your build specification is confining. Rake draws no distinction between itself and your build specification.

# -*- mode: ruby -*-
# Render modifications as beautiful
# (or hideous!) PDF
#
# sample invocation:
# rake latexmk=vendor/latexmk/latexmk.pl modifications.pdf

require 'rake/clean'
require 'rexml/document'
require 'rexml/xpath'

transform = "#{ENV['transform'] || 'vendor/saxonb9-1-0-7n/bin/Transform.exe'}"
latexmk = "#{ENV['latexmk'] || 'vendor/latexmk/latexmk.pl'}"

modifications_xml = "#{ENV['modifications_xml'] || '../Artifacts/modifications.xml'}"

task :default => 'modifications.pdf'

task :clean => ['clobberhelper'] do
end

task :clobber => ['clobberhelper'] do
end

def contains_clobber(ts)
ts.each { |i|
  return true if (i == 'clobber') || contains_clobber(Rake::Task[i].prerequisites)
}
return false
end

task :clobberhelper do |t|
if contains_clobber(Rake::application().top_level())
  sh latexmk, '-C'
else
  sh latexmk, '-c'
end
end

file 'modifications.tex' => [modifications_xml, 'modifications.xsl'] do |t|
xsl_params = {}
begin
  f = File.new('modifications.xsl')
  doc = REXML::Document.new(f)
  REXML::XPath.each(doc.root, 'xsl:param', {'xsl' => 'http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform'}) do |elt|
    xsl_params[elt.attributes['name']] = ENV[elt.attributes['name']] || elt.text
  end
ensure
  f.close unless f.nil?
end
xsl_args = xsl_params.inject([]){ |accum, (key, value)|
  accum << "#{key}=#{value}"
}
sh transform, "-s:#{modifications_xml}", '-xsl:modifications.xsl', '-o:modifications.tex', *xsl_args
end
CLEAN.include('modifications.tex')

file 'modifications.pdf' => ['modifications.tex'] do |t|
sh latexmk, '-pdf', 'modifications.tex'
end

If you don't know about rake, one point of confusion is that rake clean conventionally means "remove intermediates" while rake clobber means "remove intermediate and final outputs".

With my use of latexmk, I encountered a technical problem in the implementation of the standard clean and clobber rake tasks: latexmk needs the .tex file to decide what to clean up, but rake wants to clean (removing the .tex) before it clobbers. I needed to let latexmk do its job before clean, and latexmk needs to know whether to clean up the PDF or just the intermediates. My solution was to add a dependency clobberhelper for the clean task to call latexmk's cleanup routine. clobberhelper searches rake's dependency graph for clobber in order to decide how to call latexmk.

Finally, we have a corporate commitment to .NET and so most of our projects benefit from NAnt's understanding of .NET. We want an easy way to use this motley assortment of tools with our existing NAnt build files:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<project name="sdim" default="move-worksheet">
<property name="artifacts_dir" value="." overwrite="false" />
<!-- nant for Windows doesn't use the cygwin path so
     you need to chdir to %cygwin_home%\bin and then
     run %cygwin_home%\path\to\python or
     install Windows python and do e.g.,
     C:\Python31\python.exe -->
<property name="python" value="C:\Python31\python.exe" overwrite="false" />
<property name="rake" value="C:\Ruby\bin\rake.bat" overwrite="false" />
<property name="modifications_xml" value="modifications.xml" overwrite="false" />

<target name="move-worksheet">
  <exec program="${python}">
    <arg line="bzaugment.py ${path::combine(artifacts_dir, modifications_xml)} -o ${path::combine(artifacts_dir, 'modifications.augmented.xml')}" />
  </exec>
  <exec program="${rake}">
    <arg line="modifications_xml=${path::combine(artifacts_dir, 'modifications.augmented.xml')}" />
  </exec>
</target>

<target name="clean">
  <exec program="${rake}">
    <arg line="clobber" />
  </exec>
  <delete file="${path::combine(artifacts_dir, 'modifications.augmented.xml')}" />
</target>
</project>

I still have some reservations about the morality of this. On the one hand, no human should waste even 30 minutes of precious life preparing ambiguous, incomplete, inaccessible and uninsightful summaries of data that's already available, accurate, complete, and easily-accessible. On the other hand, you can lead a manager to water but you can't make him drink. This solution seems to balance those two forces, but by reducing the cost of useless redundancy, am I encouraging further bureaucratic malignancy?

Viola:

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the tour of this motley assemblage of languages and tools.

Thanks to Josh Buedel for comments and suggestions during the preparation of this post.

23.1: new .emacs


(setq ns-command-modifier 'meta)
(if (functionp 'tool-bar-mode)
(tool-bar-mode -1))

(setq default-buffer-file-coding-system 'utf-8-unix)
(setq-default indent-tabs-mode nil)
(put 'erase-buffer 'disabled nil)

(cond
((file-exists-p "/sw/bin")
;; MacOS X + fink
(setenv "PATH" (concat (getenv "PATH") ":/sw/bin"))
(setq exec-path (append exec-path '("/sw/bin"))))
((file-exists-p "c:/")
;; Windows
(setenv "PATH" (concat (getenv "PATH") ";c:\\cygwin-1.7\\bin"))
(setq exec-path (append exec-path '("c:\\cygwin-1.7\\bin")))
(if (require 'cygwin-mount nil t)
(progn
(cygwin-mount-activate)
(setq shell-file-name "bash")
(setenv "SHELL" shell-file-name)
(setq w32-quote-process-args ?\")
;; for subprocesses invoked via the shell
;; (e.g., "shell -c command")
(setq explicit-shell-file-name shell-file-name)
(setq explicit-sh-args '("-login" "-i"))))
; (if I'm using Windows, I must be at work!)
(setq bug-reference-url-format
"https://bugzilla.thcg.net/show_bug.cgi?id=%s")
(setq bug-reference-bug-regexp
"\\(?:[Bb]ug ?#?\\|PR [a-z-+]+/\\)\\([0-9]+\\)")))

(dolist (
prog-mode-hook
'(python-mode java-mode ruby-mode js2-mode nxml-mode))
(add-hook
(car (read-from-string (concat (symbol-name prog-mode-hook) "-hook")))
(lambda ()
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil))))

(autoload 'python-mode "python-mode" "Python editing mode." t)
(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.py$" . python-mode))
(add-to-list 'interpreter-mode-alist '("python" . python-mode))
(add-hook 'python-mode-hook
(if (null (getenv "LC_CTYPE"))
(setenv "LC_CTYPE" "C")))

(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.cs$" . java-mode))

(autoload 'js2-mode "js2" nil t)
(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.js$" . js2-mode))

(autoload 'ruby-mode "ruby-mode" "Ruby editing mode." t)
(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.rb$" . ruby-mode))

(setq auto-mode-alist
(cons '("\\.\\(xml\\|xsl\\|rng\\|xhtml\\)'" . nxml-mode)
auto-mode-alist))
(add-to-list 'magic-mode-alist '("<\\?xml " . nxml-mode))

(if (load "auctex.el" t t t)
(load "preview-latex.el" nil t t))
(setq ispell-program-name "aspell")
(setq ispell-extra-args '("--sug-mode=ultra"))


Andand.NET via monads

In my previous post, I discussed a direct implementation of andand in C#. This time, I'll show a monadic implementation.

As Justin Wick pointed out on Reg Braithwaite's blog announcing Object#andand, andand can be viewed as a special case of the Maybe Monad. I've been hearing about how useful monads are for a few years, but until recently I hadn't occasion to use them directly. Would a monad formulation of andand be simpler and clearer to read? Would it be easier to understand, if not for everyone then at least for readers who are already familiar with the monad formalism? Here was an opportunity to find out.

For those who are totally unfamiliar with monads: they're a means of accommodating side-effects within the functional paradigm. By structuring input, output, exceptions, etc. with monads, you can restore referential transparency to functions that make use of these kinds of features. Monads are surprisingly versatile. You can build lists and arrays from monads, and in the case of arrays the use of monads makes it easy to use the type system to guarantee that client code fulfills a contract on which an efficient implementation of arrays depends. The famous applications of all the functional goodies in LINQ, such as data access and data-parallel computation, are organized around monads.

So, I refreshed my memory with Monads for Functional Programming and Confessions of a Used Programming Language Salesman followed some of their references: Comprehending Monads, Guarded Recursive Datatype Constructors, and Generalized Algebraic Data Types and Object-Oriented Programming. Thus fortified, I was ready to write some tests:

public class TestMonad<M> where M : MonadImpl<M>, new() {
    [Test]
    public void leftUnit() {
        var a = new Object();
        Assert.AreEqual(a, Monad.Star(Monad.Unit<Object, M>(() => a), b => Monad.Unit<Object, M>(() => b)).Just());
    }

    [Test]
    public void rightUnit() {
        var a = new Object();
        var m = Monad.Unit<Object, M>(() => a);
        Assert.AreEqual(
            Monad.Just(m),
            Monad.Just(
                Monad.Star(m, b => Monad.Unit<Object, M>(() => b))));
    }

    public Monad<String, M> an(Object o) {
        return Monad.Unit<String, M>(() => o.ToString());
    }

    public Monad<Int32, M> bo(Object o) {
        return Monad.Unit<Int32, M>(() => o.GetHashCode());
    }

    [Test]
    public void associative() {
        var m = Monad.Unit<Object, M>(() => new Object());
        Assert.AreEqual(
            Monad.Just(
                Monad.Star(
                    m,
                    a => Monad.Star(an(a), b => bo((String)b)))),
            Monad.Just(
                Monad.Star(
                    Monad.Star(m, a => an(a)),
                    b => bo(b))));
    }
}

I'm following the definitions from Monads for Functional Programming here: a Monad is a triple <M, Unit, ★> where M is a type constructor (generic type), Unit is a function from computations of type a to M a, and ★ applies a function to a monad.

My use of the name "Just" here is regrettable. The Maybe monad's type constructor is conventionally defined as a simple union:

Maybe a = Nothing | Just a

. So, by convention,

Just a

takes a computation of arbitrary type

a

to a monad representing that computation. My function "Just" is the inverse, taking a Monad to the computation it represents. I gather that the primitive monad operators are normally encapsulated so that control of side-effects is well localized/modularized. Usually, function composition on monad values is accomplished by ★, so it's not often necessary to explicitly extract raw computations from monads. Finally, monads seem to be most popular within the Haskell community, and pattern-matching is a pretty ubiquitous in Haskell programs. I think these reasons explain why (as far as I know) there's not much use and no standard name for the operation I call "Just" in my code.

Having translated the mathematical and Haskell definitions of monad into C#, I was ready to check that my translation could extend to an example application shown elsewhere:

[TestFixture]
public class TestMaybeMonad : TestMonad<MaybeMonadImpl> {
    private Monad<String, MaybeMonadImpl> lookup(string name, Dictionary<String, Monad<String, MaybeMonadImpl>> db) {
        Monad<String, MaybeMonadImpl> result;
        db.TryGetValue(name, out result);
        return result;
    }
        
    [Test]
    public void MailSystem() {
        //based very loosely on haskell.org's example
        // (I don't understand why their mplus is relevant)
        var fullnamedb = new Dictionary<String, Monad<String, MaybeMonadImpl>>();
        var nicknamedb = new Dictionary<String, Monad<String, MaybeMonadImpl>>();
        fullnamedb.Add("nicholas", Monad.Unit<String, MaybeMonadImpl>("n@m.com"));
        nicknamedb.Add("nick", Monad.Unit<String, MaybeMonadImpl>("nicholas"));
        var mnick = Monad.Unit<String, MaybeMonadImpl>("nick");
        Assert.AreEqual(
            "n@m.com",
            Monad.Star(
                Monad.Star(mnick, nick => lookup(nick, nicknamedb)),
                name => lookup(name, fullnamedb)).Just());
    }

And finally, I can restate andand in terms of monads:

private class D {}
private class C {
    public D d;
}
private class B {
    public C c;
}
private class A {
    public B b;
}
[Test]
public void andand() {
    A nil = null;
    A a = new A();
    A ab = new A() { b = new B() };
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand<A>(() => null));
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => (A)null));
    Assert.AreEqual(a, MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => a));
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => a.b));
    Assert.AreEqual(ab.b, MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => ab.b));
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => ab.b.c));
    Func<Object> x = null;
    Func<Func<Object>> y = null;
    y = () => null;
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => y()()));
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => a.b.c));
    Assert.IsNull(MaybeMonad<D>.Andand(() => a.b.c.d));
}

OK then, let's see how this is implemented:

public class MonadImpl<M> where M : MonadImpl<M>, new() {
    public virtual Monad<B, M> Star<A, B>(Monad<A, M> ma, Func<A, Monad<B, M>> f) {
        return f(ma.Just());
    }
}
public class Monad<T, M> where M : MonadImpl<M>, new() {
    public M impl = new M();
    public T Just() {
        return a();
    }
    internal protected Func<T> a;
    public Monad<B, M> Star<B>(Func<T, Monad<B, M>> f) {
        return impl.Star<T, B>(this, f);
    }
    public static Monad<A, M> Unit<A>(A a) {
        return new Monad<A, M>() { a = () => a };
    }        
}

A monad represents a computation of arbitrary type and some sort of side-effect whose control motivates the use of monads. Wrapping and unwrapping the computation associated with the monad is a straightforward example of parametric polymorphism. Slightly more interesting is recursive nature of the Monad type, whose method signatures involve the type on which they are defined. Simple parametric polymorphism permits us to define methods that behave uniformly on values of any type. If we want to make use of non-universal structure on those values we can restrict the values to a range of types that share the structure we need. Often, in a recursively-defined type, we want this range of types to itself involve a type parameter. For example, in this case we want Star to take a Monad and to return a Monad of a similar type. This requires f-bounded polymorphism, which is supported in .NET's generics; c#'s where clause not only binds type parameters, but can (re)use those parameters in the bounds.

Managing the side-effects is less straightforward. Here we want uniform packing/unpacking behavior across all computations, but side-effect management behavior that is peculiar to the kind of side-effect captured by the monad. We've had some support for behavioral refinement that follows subtyping relationships since the beginning of .NET, with virtual methods. But the Star function takes a monad (with behavior b and computation c) and a function from c to d and returns a monad with behavior b and computation d. It builds a value whose type is merely related and not identical to any of its type arguments. This is characteristic of Guarded Recursive Datatype Constructors. These g.r. datatypes, also known as Generalized Algebraic Data Types (GADTs), are not yet well-supported in .NET. Fortunately, the work-around shown above is sufficient for seeing the connection between monads and andand.

The Maybe Monad represents "just" a computation, or "nothing." The monad structure makes it easy and convenient to treat Maybes in a uniform way, regardless of whether a particular Maybe represents "nothing" or a non-nothing computation. If you're familiar with the Null Object pattern, you'll recognize the benefit of this uniformity and you'll see that Maybe monad is a more general alternative to Null Object in many contexts.

So finally we're ready to see andand, implemented in terms of the MaybeMonad:

public class MaybeMonadImpl : MaybeMonadImpl<MaybeMonadImpl> {}
public class MaybeMonad<T> : Monad<T, MaybeMonadImpl> {
    private static Expression andandifyme(MemberExpression me) {
        var objectParameter = Expression.Parameter(me.Expression.Type, "target");
        var parameters = new ParameterExpression [] {objectParameter};
        //TODO: simplify by using the parameter f rather than by duplicating
        // the subexpression: andandify(me.Expression) in slotValue and
        // in the Just of Star of Unit below (the subexpression could occur
        // solely in slotValue, and then its value could be used by
        // dereferencing f in the Just of Star of Unit.
        var slotValue =
            andandifyinr(
                Expression.Invoke(
                    Expression.Lambda(
                        Expression.MakeMemberAccess(
                            objectParameter,
                            me.Member),
                        parameters),
                    andandify(me.Expression)));
        var f = Expression.Parameter(me.Expression.Type, "f");
        return
            Expression.Call(
                typeof(Monad),
                "Just",
                new Type [] { me.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                Expression.Call(
                    typeof(Monad),
                    "Star",
                    new Type [] { me.Expression.Type, me.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                    Expression.Call(
                        typeof(Monad),
                        "Unit",
                        new Type [] { me.Expression.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                        andandify(me.Expression)),
                    Expression.Lambda(
                        Expression.Call(
                            typeof(Monad),
                            "Unit",
                            new Type [] { me.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                            slotValue),
                        f)));
    }
    private static Expression andandifyi(InvocationExpression i) {
        return
            andandifyinr(
                Expression.Invoke(
                    andandify(i.Expression),
                    i.Arguments));
    }
    private static Expression andandifyinr(InvocationExpression i) {
        var l = i.Expression;
        var f = Expression.Parameter(l.Type, "f");
        return
            Expression.Call(
                typeof(Monad),
                "Just",
                new Type [] { i.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                Expression.Call(
                    typeof(Monad),
                    "Star",
                    new Type [] { l.Type, i.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                    Expression.Call(
                        typeof(Monad),
                        "Unit",
                        new Type [] { l.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                        l),
                    Expression.Lambda(
                        Expression.Call(
                            typeof(Monad),
                            "Unit",
                            new Type [] { i.Type, typeof(MaybeMonadImpl) },
                            i),
                        f)));
    }
    private static LambdaExpression andandifyl(LambdaExpression l) {
        return
            Expression.Lambda(
                andandify(l.Body),
                Enumerable.Select(
                    l.Parameters,
                    p => (ParameterExpression)andandify(p)).ToArray());
    }
    private static Expression andandify(Expression expr) {
        var me = expr as MemberExpression;
        if (me != null) {
            return andandifyme(me);
        }
        var i = expr as InvocationExpression;
        if (i != null) {
            return andandifyi(i);
        }
        var l = expr as LambdaExpression;
        if (l != null) {
            return andandifyl(l);
        }
        return expr;
    }
    public static U Andand<U>(Expression<Func<U>> expr) {
        var aexpr = (Expression<Func<U>>)andandify(expr);
        try {
            return (U)aexpr.Compile().DynamicInvoke();
        }
        catch (Exception e) {
            throw new Exception(
                          String.Format(
                               "trouble evaluating {0}", 
                               aexpr),
                          e);
        }
    }
}

By conflating null and Maybe's Nothing, we preserve the simple approach Identity monad can use for Star: just unwrap the computation from the input monad and wrap it in the output monad. This approach doesn't work in general, because there might be state associated with the monads that we'd need to migrate.

Now, comparing the direct implementation to the monadic implementation, you might be ready to decide that monads might be theoretically interesting but are impractical. I think that on one hand, the more stateful monads benefit more fully from the paradigm than the Maybe monad; on the other hand, C# exaggerates the ceremony of monad implementation relative to Haskell. Microsoft hasn't highlighted their use of monads in LINQ or EF or PLINQ, and they haven't exposed any analog to my Monad<T, M> type, so I couldn't share that implementation for andand. In summary, I don't think the monadic implementation of andand carries its weight, but if I saw an opportunity to benefit from other kinds of monads in my program, the benefits might easily outweigh the amortized costs of monads.