Design Pattern for invoking a Parser in a callback - c++

I have an application that invokes callback function when a certain action is performed on the application.
Inside this callback function, I would like to invoke a Parser (a command line parser for instance).
This Parser would be running in a while loop and exits and comes back to the callback only when the user uses the command 'quit' on the command line.
Inside the while loop, the user always has access to the command line. Based on the user input on the command line, the Parser takes a unique action. For instance, it will set a variable and it goes to a database like so:
command-line>a 100
command-line>
Here the parameter a in DB would be set to 100.
I want to model the Parser using Object-Oriented Design. Which Design Pattern can I use in this case?

First and foremost, most design patterns are obsoleted by the introduction of first-class functions. What you need is a dispatch table of names to actions, which is basically the Command pattern.
Assuming the following definitions:
using Tokens = std::vector<std::string>;
using Action = std::function<void(const Tokens&)>;
Tokens read_and_tokenize_line();
void larger_command(const Tokens&);
std::map<std::string, Action> dispatch_table = {
{"a", [&](const Tokens& tokens){ my_database->set("a", tokens[1]); }},
{"larger_command", &larger_command},
};
You could write your core loop as follows:
while (true) {
auto tokens = read_and_tokenize_line();
if (tokens[0] == "quit")
break;
if (auto it = dispatch_table.find(tokens[0]); it != dispatch_table.end()) {
it->second(tokens);
} else {
std::cerr << "command " << tokens[0] << " not known" << std::endl;
}
}

The main problem you have is that your parser run in a while loop and that will obviously block your UI. I assume this issue is the (unstated) problem you are trying to solve.
First, there exist parsers that don't need to run in a while loop. bison can generate such parsers when in push mode. By using this kind of parser you can still rely on your main GUI event loop and feed the parser with tokens inside a callback without blocking.
Then, if you are writing yourself a recursive-descent parser, you can generate a parser that will interrupt itself and save its state each time it needs some input. This is going to be very tricky as you have to save the whole state of the parser including its stack. The way to do it is to use an explicit stack (or many stacks, one for each operand type) for all functions and rewrite the function calls as a big loop inside a switch statement. This is (very) hard and not maintainable. You can start by reading this article (which deals with a simpler version of the problem).
Finally, you can use a background thread to host your parser's while loop. Send data to the parser using a pipe or a queue with a semaphore (if you can customize the input method). The issue here is that this background thread will (probably) not be able to update the UI because most framework are not thread-safe. So you will need a mechanism to send back information from the parser to the main UI thread (something like PostMessage.
References
Bison - push-parser interface, GNU, https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Push-Parser-Function.html
Coroutines in C, Simon Tatham, https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html
Win32 API - PostMessage, Microsoft, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-postmessagea

Related

uwp: How download files when app is in suspended mode

There is queue with links of files to download. I'm trying find the way to continue downloading when application goes to suspend mode.
According to official microsoft documentation suitable class for this is BackgroundDownloader, but it's handles only one current downloading process. It looks wrong to call in loop CreateDownload() method for every link without waiting for the completion of previous links, isn't right?
More logical in my opinion is using in-process background task. I see it this way:
Implement Run(IBackgroundTaskInstance) method of interface IBackgroundTask (it should stay alive even when app is suspended, right?)
Using custom event transmit the queue to the implemented method
Inside Run(IBackgroundTaskInstance) method use BackgroundDownloader (by implementing the execution of one instance at a time)
But I'm stuck even with simple implementation for one file downloading. Bellow my Run(IBackgroundTaskInstance) method implementation:
void Task::DownloaderTask::Run(IBackgroundTaskInstance ^ taskInstance)
{
TaskDeferral = taskInstance->GetDeferral();
std::wstring filename = L"Pleiades_large.jpg";
Uri^ uri = ref new Uri(ref new Platform::String(L"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Pleiades_large.jpg"));
Concurrency::create_task(KnownFolders::GetFolderForUserAsync(nullptr, KnownFolderId::PicturesLibrary))
.then([this, filename, uri](StorageFolder^ picturesLibrary)
{
return picturesLibrary->CreateFileAsync(ref new Platform::String(filename.c_str()), CreationCollisionOption::GenerateUniqueName);
}).then([this, filename, uri](StorageFile^ destinationFile) {
BackgroundDownloader^ downloader = ref new BackgroundDownloader();
DownloadOperation^ download = downloader->CreateDownload(uri, destinationFile);
download->StartAsync();
}).then([this](Concurrency::task<void> previousTask)
{
try
{
previousTask.get();
TaskDeferral->Complete();
}
catch (Platform::Exception^ ex)
{
wchar_t buffer[1024];
swprintf_s(buffer, L"Exception: %s", ex->Message);
OutputDebugString(buffer);
}
});
}
The code above only creates empty file, but using the same code without BackgroundTask it works correctly. I didn't find any restrictions for BackgroundDownloader inside BackgroundTask.
So, my questions are:
Is it right way of usage BackgroundTask?
Is there another approach to solving the problem?
Is this problem solvable at all?
I've found the cause of the unexpected behavior:
The line of code TaskDeferral->Complete(); was at the end of the method at first while it should be at the end of async call.
Therefore, initial implementation (published in question) is correct.
All that had to be done was to Rebuild project.

C++ Simple based scripting for RPG game actions?

I am working on a video game called Tibia and I pretty much got the basic things of the game server, but now I need to be able to develop actions or so scripting, but very simplified nothing fancy or difficult, I don't like messy things.
Currently the community of this video game have achieved access to original files of it's scripting environment and it's like this:
Collision, IsCreature (Obj2) -> Teleport(Player,[47,14,1])
The scripting or syntax parser from this closed-source environment uses is a simple token based class, which looks for tokens and reads accordingly based on code.
Tokens are as follows:
A-Z = IDENTIFIER
0-9 = NUMBER
" = STRING
Anythig else = SYMBOL
And it's used like follows:
// This is a sample to use with the code below:
// USERNAME = "ROBERT"
//
nextToken(); // Looks for next token type
if (token == IDENTIFIER) {
readSymbol(); // This reads =
readString(); // This reads text inside "
}
What it basically does is loop in a char* array and look for tokens, I hope this is easy to understand.
What I am looking to achieve is a way to organize in my C++ code the functions with parameters given in the script file, like if I have this on a script file:
// Conditions -> Actions
IsPosition([10,20,7]) -> TeleportPlayer(Player,[25,10,30])
Know a way to gather this function with it's parameters to use in my game world environment? Like after I read this script file save the particular conditions and actions to check somewhere else on my code if the conditions accomplish and then do the following actions? Like check if the player is standing in Position and then teleport the player (which is what is written in the script file)

How to test asynchronuous code

I've written my own access layer to a game engine. There is a GameLoop which gets called every frame which lets me process my own code. I'm able to do specific things and to check if these things happened. In a very basic way it could look like this:
void cycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
//read the value
std::string text = Engine::getText();
}
I want to test if my Engine-layer is working by writing automated tests. I have some experience in using the Boost Unittest Framework for simple comparison tests like this.
The problem is, that some things I want the engine to do are just processed after the call to cycle(). So calling Engine::getText() directly after Engine::setText(...) would return an empty string. If I would wait until the next call of cycle() the right value would be returned.
I now am wondering how I should write my tests if it is not possible to process them in the same cycle. Are there any best practices? Is it possible to use the "traditional testing" approach given by Boost Unittest Framework in such an environment? Are there perhaps other frameworks aimed at such a specialised case?
I'm using C++ for everything here, but I could imagine that there are answers unrelated to the programming language.
UPDATE:
It is not possible to access the Engine outside of cycle()
In your example above, std::string text = Engine::getText(); is the code you want to remember from one cycle but execute in the next. You can save it for later execution. For example - using C++11 you could use a lambda to wrap the test into a simple function specified inline.
There are two options with you:
If the library that you have can be used synchronously or using c++11 futures like facility (which can indicate the readyness of the result) then in your test case you can do something as below
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (!Engine::isResultReady());
//read the value
assert(Engine::getText() == "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT");
}
If you dont have the above the best you can do have a timeout (this is not a good option though because you may have spurious failures):
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (Engine::getText() != "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT") {
wait(1 millisec);
if (total_wait_time > 1 sec) // you can put whatever max time
assert(0);
}
}

Lua preserving global values

I use Lua for my game engine logic. My main game loop is not done in Lua. Only special nodes in my scene hierarchy have Lua scripts attached. These scripts are executed every frame. The problem I face is that I need to keep global variable values from one frame to another.
My temporary solution looks like this:
finish = useBool("finish", false)
timer = useInt("timer", 0)
showTimer = useBool("showTimer", true)
startTimer = useInt("startTimer", 0)
play0 = useBool("play0", false)
play1 = useBool("play1", false)
play2 = useBool("play2", false)
play3 = useBool("play3", false)
delta = useInt("delta", 0)
gameOverTime = useInt("gameOverTime", 5000)
finishTime = useInt("finishTime", 5000)
checkPoint = useInt("checkPoint", 255)
<...> Game logic <...>
setInt("message", message);
setInt("checkPoint", checkPoint)
setInt("finishTime", finishTime)
setInt("gameOverTime", gameOverTime)
setInt("timer", timer)
setBool("play3", play3)
setBool("play2", play2)
setBool("play1", play1)
setBool("play0", play0)
setInt("startTimer", startTimer)
setBool("showTimer", showTimer)
setInt("timer", timer)
setBool("finish", finish);
I call special methods that retrieve global variables from hash maps in C++ at the beginning and I set them again at the end of the script.
Is there a way to do this implicitly?
Is it a bad design to use Lua not as the main game loop?
Well, while there is nothing technically wrong with your solution, you might start to notice some performance issues if you end up with a lot of global variables (something you should, in general, avoid).
With that said, there is room for improvement. For example:
At the beginning of the script, check if your global variable is nil. If it is, then you can initialize it, if not, this is probably not the first time you're running the script, so leave it unmodified. But that means a lot of pesky if-else statements, which one can easily forget about. We can do better!
I would recommend looking at Chapter 14: The Environment, from the Programming in Lua book. Here's a quick quote from the intro:
Lua keeps all its global variables in a regular table, called the environment. ... The other (actually the main) advantage is that we can manipulate this table as any other table. To facilitate such manipulations, Lua stores the environment itself in a global variable _G. (Yes, _G._G is equal to _G.)
Since _G is a table, it also has a metatable, so you can define __index and __newindex metamethods to handle access to and creation of global variables. You can find examples of this in section 14.2. Go read the whole chapter, it's not that long (if you're unfamiliar with metamethods and metatables, also look through chapter 13 - this is where Lua really shines in terms of flexibility).
Now that we've covered the trivial and normal methods, let's look at the overkill end of the spectrum. As an example I'll look at Unity's approach to scripting. A Unity javascript usually defines variables, functions, and types. Any variables defined outside of the scope of methods or types are persisted between frames because the script itself is not executed every frame. Instead, they let the script define functions and call the functions at the appropriate time. So if you want something executed every frame - you put it in the Update function. Every script can define it's own Update function because it has it's own scope. So every frame the scripting engine goes through all objects, checks if the script's scope has an Update method and calls it.
Back to Lua - a solution like this would involve creating separate environments for each object/script/whatever your node is. Then, instead of executing the script attached to your node every frame, your main loop will go through all the nodes and run a function inside of their environment. You can also switch environments, so you can set the global environment to your node's env before executing it, and then switch back when you're done. This allows your scripts to use globals as they see fit, have them persisted between frames and excludes the possibility of name collisions or global namespace pollution. Additionally you can use metamethods to nest the node's environment inside the actual global environment or inside an API environment with helper methods (basically, if __index does not find something it looks it up in a parent).

Using Lua to define NPC behaviour in a C++ game engine

I'm working on a game engine in C++ using Lua for NPC behaviour. I ran into some problems during the design.
For everything that needs more than one frame for execution I wanted to use a linked list of processes (which are C++ classes). So this:
goto(point_a)
say("Oh dear, this lawn looks really scruffy!")
mowLawn()
would create a GotoProcess object, which would have a pointer to a SayProcess object, which would have a pointer to a MowLawnProcess object. These objects would be created instantly when the NPC is spawned, no further scripting needed.
The first of these objects will be updated each frame. When it's finished, it will be deleted and the next one will be used for updating.
I extended this model by a ParallelProcess which would contain multiple processes that are updated simultaneously.
I found some serious problems. Look at this example: I want a character to walk to point_a and then go berserk and just attack anybody who comes near. The script would look like that:
goto(point_a)
while true do
character = getNearestCharacterId()
attack(character)
end
That wouldn't work at all with my design. First of all, the character variable would be set at the beginning, when the character hasn't even started walking to point_a. Then, then script would continue adding AttackProcesses forever due to the while loop.
I could implement a WhileProcess for the loop and evaluate the script line by line. I doubt this would increase readability of the code though.
Is there another common approach I didn't think of to tackle this problem?
I think the approach you give loses a lot of the advantages of using a scripting language. It will break with conditionals as well as loops.
With coroutines all you really need to do is:
npc_behaviour = coroutine.create(
function()
goto(point_a)
coroutine.yield()
say("Oh dear, this lawn looks really scruffy!")
coroutine.yield()
mowLawn()
coroutine.yield()
end
)
goto, say and mowLawn return immediately but initiate the action in C++. Once C++ completes those actions it calls coroutine.resume(npc_behaviour)
To avoid all the yields you can hide them inside the goto etc. functions, or do what I do which is have a waitFor function like:
function waitFor(id)
while activeEvents[id] ~= nil do
coroutine.yield()
end
end
activeEvents is just a Lua table which keeps track of all the things which are currently in progress - so a goto will add an ID to the table when it starts, and remove it when it finishes, and then every time an action finishes, all coroutines are activated to check if the action they're waiting for is finished.
Have you looked at Finite State Machines ? If I were you I wouldn't use a linked list but a stack. I think the end result is the same.
stack:push(action:new(goto, character, point_a))
stack:push(action:new(say, character, "Oh dear, this lawn was stomped by a mammoth!"))
stack:push(action:new(mowLawn, character))
Executing the actions sequentially would give something like :
while stack.count > 0 do -- do all actions in the stack
action = stack:peek() -- gets the action on top of the stack
while action.over ~= true do -- continue action until it is done
action:execute() -- execute is what the action actually does
end
stack:pop() -- action over, remove it and proceed to next one
end
The goto and other functions would look like this :
function goto(action, character, point)
-- INSTANT MOVE YEAH
character.x = point.x
character.y = point.y
action.over = true -- set the overlying action to be over
end
function attack(action, character, target)
-- INSTANT DEATH WOOHOO
target.hp = 0
action.over = true -- attack is a punctual action
end
function berserk(action, character)
attack(action, character, getNearestCharacterId()) -- Call the underlying attack
action.over = false -- but don't set action as done !
end
So whenever you stack:push(action:new(berserk, character)) it will loop on attacking a different target every time.
I also made you a stack and action implementation in object lua here. Haven't tried it. May be bugged like hell. Good luck with your game !
I don't know the reasons behind you design, and there might be simpler / more idiomatic ways to it.
However, would writing a custom "loop" process that would somehow take a function as it's argument do the trick ?
goto(point_a)
your_loop(function ()
character = getNearestCharacterId()
attack(character)
end)
Since Lua has closures (see here in the manual), the function could be attached to your 'LoopProcess', and you call this same function at each frame. You would probably have to implement your LoopProcess so that that it's never removed from the process list ...
If you want your loop to be able to stop, it's a bit more complicated ; you would have to pass another function containing the test logic (and again, you LoopProcess would have to call this every frame, or something).
Hoping I understood your problem ...