New functions for checking multiple sets

[linuswagner]

Add two functions to Set library:

1. intersection to get the intersection of multiple sets
2. isDisjoined to check if multiple sets are pairwise disjoined

[linuswagner]

Functionality doesn't have tests. Where do the tests go for the Set library?
Also, I don't like that intersection uses the getFirstFrom function to be able to use the reducer. Any idea how to better implement that?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 46%. Comparing base (f6d6bbe) to head (a6b1e31).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              main   #1925   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage       46%     46%           
- Complexity    6725    6736   +11     
=======================================
  Files          794     794           
  Lines        65923   65923           
  Branches      9888    9888           
=======================================
+ Hits         30837   30852   +15     
+ Misses       32696   32681   -15     
  Partials      2390    2390           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jurgenvinju]

Very nice additions and necessary to the library. Thanks @linuswagner

[DavyLandman]

Hi @linuswagner,

thanks for the nice addition. Could you at at least a few tests to the lang::rascal::tests::library::Set module?

[linuswagner]

@jurgenvinju I can't find the explanation of when in combination with pattern matching in the documentation, but I assume that in the case of

public bool isPairwiseDisjoint([set[&T] a, set[&T] b, *_]) = false when a & b != {};
public default bool isPairwiseDisjoint([set[&T] a, set[&T] b, *_]) = true;

it does not actually match pairs, but actually keeps a fixed, because isPairwiseDisjoint([{1,2}, {3,4}, {2}]) is true, should be false, and switching the order of the last two elements results in false again.
Or is the problem that I switched from a set to a list?

[linuswagner]

Hi @linuswagner,

thanks for the nice addition. Could you at at least a few tests to the lang::rascal::tests::library::Set module?

Perfect, that's what I was looking for. Thanks!

I've decided to make the operations stricter and throw exceptions when the input has not at least 2 elements.
The decision here is that I rather have something that is supposed to compare tell me if it can't compare rather than that it masks that.
On the downside, others will always have to check before calling the function, which causes more code and could cause weird cornercases (e.g. most of the times, the program produces inputs with at least 2 sets, but rarely, it gives less than that).

Is Rascal generally "better safe than sorry" or "you should better know what you're doing"?

[DavyLandman]

Hi @linuswagner,
thanks for the nice addition. Could you at at least a few tests to the lang::rascal::tests::library::Set module?

Perfect, that's what I was looking for. Thanks!

Cool 👍🏼

I've decided to make the operations stricter and throw exceptions when the input has not at least 2 elements. The decision here is that I rather have something that is supposed to compare tell me if it can't compare rather than that it masks that. On the downside, others will always have to check before calling the function, which causes more code and could cause weird cornercases (e.g. most of the times, the program produces inputs with at least 2 sets, but rarely, it gives less than that).

Is Rascal generally "better safe than sorry" or "you should better know what you're doing"?

I think better safe than sorry. We don't want someone to base their conclusion on something where rascal was just sneakily hiding an error the user made. So if there is no default correct behavior for an input with 1 element, then yeah, throw an exception.

[DavyLandman]

sets == wholeInput, no need to give it two names right?

[DavyLandman]

if possible, think of an way to write an random tests. something like:

test bool testRandomPairwiseDisjoint(set[value] a, set[value] b) = (a & b == {}) == isPairwiseDisjoint([a,b]);

or even better if you could do it without using the intersection operator.

[jurgenvinju]

Looking at this to merge the contributions. Currently wrestling with merge conflicts.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud