Skip to content

Ios compatibility codex #5

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
OlKir merged 2 commits into from
Oct 3, 2025
Merged

Ios compatibility codex #5

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a57f028
Refactor custom weighting parameters with codex.
Oct 1, 2025
e5c102a
Improve creation of weighting parameters with codex.
Oct 2, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions .../src/main/java/com/graphhopper/routing/weighting/custom/ConditionalExpressionVisitor.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -105,6 +105,10 @@ public Boolean visitRvalue(Java.Rvalue rv) throws Exception {
return true;
}
}
} else if (n.identifiers.length == 1 && mi.arguments.length == 0 && variableValidator.isValid(n.identifiers[0])) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@benedikt-brandtner-bikemap benedikt-brandtner-bikemap Oct 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why was this added it seems like this tries to support a method invocation pattern?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@OlKir OlKir Oct 2, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Codex:

I added that branch in core/src/main/java/com/graphhopper/routing/weighting/custom/ConditionalExpressionVisitor.java:108 because, while testing the refactored custom-model caching, Janino sometimes reports the target of an ordinal() call as a single identifier. For expressions like track_type.ordinal() in the built-in models (e.g. motorcycle.json), mi.target.toRvalue() now yields an AmbiguousName with length 1, so our earlier logic never recorded track_type as a used variable and the parser rejected the condition (“… not available”). The new else if just mirrors the existing road_class.ordinal() case for that AST shape so we still accept the expression and we add the variable to guessedVariables, ensuring the enum accessor is created when the model is re-used from the cache.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@OlKir OlKir Oct 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For me it's a quick fix for .ordinal() operation. I'm not sure if we use it. But might be useful in future:

change is not specific to track_type; it kicks in whenever Janino gives us a zero-argument method call whose target reduces to a single identifier that the validator accepts. So any bike-oriented custom model that ever does something like bike_network.ordinal() (or a similar accessor on a bike-specific encoded value) now stays valid and keeps the variable in guessedVariables, ensuring the lookup/accessor is built correctly. Even though the shipped bike models don’t currently rely on .ordinal(), they’re covered automatically if we add such expressions later.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@OlKir OlKir Oct 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The fact that core tests are passing without this addition kind of confirms the statement.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@benedikt-brandtner-bikemap benedikt-brandtner-bikemap Oct 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm alright sounds good to me

// track_type.ordinal()
result.guessedVariables.add(n.identifiers[0]);
return true;
}
}
invalidMessage = mi.methodName + " is an illegal method in a conditional expression";
Expand Down
Loading
Loading