potassco / potassco/constraint-handler
Naming Consistency of Set Values/References.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 3
- Forks
- 0
- Avg merge
- 1d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 20
Description
While digging deeper into the problem #172 , I realized that the naming of values of sets themselves varies between engines and the number of representations increased in the same commit that introduced one of the problems specified in the other issue.
Given the following:
set_declare(issue, my_set).
set_assign(issue, my_set, val(int, (1;2;3))).
We get these values for different engines in the respective commits.
Commit (old): 17b9e5411c7b2633badff9eab1c47fc430459dd0
| engine | value |
|---|---|
| compile | value(my_set,val(set,ref(variable(my_set)))) |
| ground | value(my_set,val(set,set((val(int,2),(val(int,3),(val(int,1),())))))) |
| propagator | value(my_set,val(set,ref(variable(my_set)))) |
Commit (new): 5388619010540bf26ed0e72eb467327e259f753b
| engine | value |
|---|---|
| compile | value(my_set,ref(set,variable(my_set))) |
| ground | value(my_set,val(set,set((val(int,1),(val(int,2),(val(int,3),())))))) |
| propagator | value(my_set,val(set,ref(variable(my_set)))) |
So we went from two different ways set references are represented to three different ways, because the output of the propagator was not adapted.
In general, I think all user-facing outputs should probably be as close to the same as possible regardless of the engine.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Compare the compile, ground, and propagator representations produced for the set_declare/set_assign example, using the old and new commits as reference points. Align the user-facing set value and reference naming across engines, with the three engine outputs agreeing on the intended representation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100