P265 was updated.

I'm going to tackle these since they seem reasonable:

API defined in efl_layout_calc.eo missing in 2
   calc_auto_update_hints:
      efl_ui_layout.eo
      efl_ui_image.eo
   calc_size_min:
      efl_ui_layout.eo
      efl_ui_layout.eo
   calc_parts_extends:
      efl_ui_layout.eo
      efl_ui_image.eo
   calc_force:
      efl_ui_layout.eo
      efl_ui_layout.eo
   calc_freeze:
      efl_ui_image.eo
      efl_ui_image.eo
   calc_thaw:
      efl_ui_image.eo
      efl_ui_image.eo

Nice, i am going to tackle

API defined in efl_container.eo missing in 3
   content_remove:
      efl_ui_box.eo
      efl_ui_table.eo
   content_iterate:
      efl_canvas_layout.eo
      efl_canvas_layout.eo
   content_count:
      efl_canvas_layout.eo
      efl_canvas_layout.eo

Looking through the rest:
efl_player, efl_file, efl_text, efl_i10n, efl_l18n are needing reconsiderations. I would say we resolve everything arround that. Then look at them.
When we are in this stage, we can enable the errors in eolian as warnings, it will print a few but not too much, new API will then be warned on, and we should be picky about not introducing more unimplemented APIs

It seems that P265 is not accurate; the mmap property is shown as not implemented by efl_ui_image, but it definitely is implemented there.

I propose to change the name of efl_gfx_image_animation_controller to efl_gfx_frame_controller since "frame" could be commonly used then "image",
This interface must be designed to control sort of "scene", just normal "image" or something continous vector data...
Any feedback is welcome.

This task will be progressed on D7769.

Thanks 211064113104702b2c6bd279e9e8a04ee0e8254a :)
But when I try to print all the unimplemented warnings by using the above commit, build error causes not to print all the unimplemented warnings.

To print all the unimplemented warnings, EOLIAN_CLASS_UNIMPLEMENTED_WARN=1 is defined and also make _db_check_implemented() always return EINA_TRUE not to cause build error.
Otherwise, some of unimplemented warnings are not printed because the build error stops build before printing the unimplemented warnings.

BTW, for now, the unimplemented warnings are printed repeatdly (same warnings are printed many times).

@Jaehyun_Cho please see https://phab.enlightenment.org/T5719#129918. This is the possibility to get the latest warnings in one strucutred file or in the first file, the blank eolian output.

Further more, all revisions added to this task, are already fixing such API problems. P265 <- this is the current state in master, P268 <-this is the state after all those revisions above are applied.

In T5719#130248, @Hermet wrote:

I propose to change the name of efl_gfx_image_animation_controller to efl_gfx_frame_controller since "frame" could be commonly used then "image",
This interface must be designed to control sort of "scene", just normal "image" or something continous vector data...
Any feedback is welcome.

This task will be progressed on D7769.

This sounds fine.

@Hermet The problem i can see in efl_canvas_layout is, that the player is used, even if there is no video, rather just a animation.
My idea: Efl_Animation_Player, which just has playable_get, play_get, play_set, play_speed_set, play_speed_get. which covers everything that can be done with a animation. This would solve the problem for efl_canvas_layout.

What do you think ?

P265 was updated! Due to a change in eolian we are back to 2434 Cases to check, anyways, we already got ~ 1K resolved since we started!

Putting this on pause on my end for a bit. I think we need the following to make further progress:

• landing all outstanding patches
• discussion of T7664

I think we should be in better shape at this point?

@bu5hm4n @zmike @felipealmeida

I think we can separate the cause of this task into 3 cases.

Case 1. The interface is not well designed. (The interface should be separated or deleted)
Case 2. The class should not implement the interface.
Case 3. Both the interface and the class are well designed.

For case1 and case2, we can modify interface and class.

However, for case3, how about just leave it and mark the method with something (e.g. @empty) ?
And the case3 can be handled in language bindings as follows.

//C# example (.cs)
virtual public bool setcontent(Efl.Gfx.Entity) {

throw new NotImplementedException();
...

}

What do you think about it?

Lets split this up:

First part: We should split up more interfaces in order to get a better usability of them, so they apply to *all* of our usecases, and not just a few. This even might end up with interfaces with only 1 property.

Second part "@empty / erroring in implementations":

I think we should be very carefull with @empty or erroring in implementations. Lets take the example of getting the position of a object, lets say something takes the position of a element because it wants to display a highlight on them. In this case a not implementation position getter would result in a completely miss oriented highlight. However the implementation of the highlight cannot ensure if the position is legal or illegal, thus we should make sure that such getters are really implemented in a meaningfull manner, a setter however, is less dangours in that regard, since the position that you set might be altered anyways, so as long as you respect ownership etc., having a empty setter is fine, a empty getter is *not*. Same applies basically to methods with a return value which is something else than just a success indicator.

tldr: We should only use @empty / error out on setters, never on methods or getters.

Third part: Throwing a exception in case of a unimplemented method does not seem to be a good idea to me, a exception will change the control-flow of a software just becase you called something on a object that does not support the functions that it actaully implemented. This is to me a indicator that then the interface should have been splitted up, since such a thing can *never* work in runtime, and with a splitted interface, it would also not work at compile time, which would make debugging a issue regarding this a lot easier. Doing this will also lower the usability-quality of our API IMO.

For further comments, we should split this up into multiple tasks i think, or the communication will be a bit difficult.

@bu5hm4n @zmike

One question.
Do we need to handle legacy eo files (for example, elm_xxx.eo, evas_xxx.eo, and so on) now - even those will not be bind to other languages ?

In T5719#130525, @woohyun wrote:

@bu5hm4n @zmike

One question.
Do we need to handle legacy eo files (for example, elm_xxx.eo, evas_xxx.eo, and so on) now - even those will not be bind to other languages ?

No, see T7463

@zmike

Then, why are we handling legacy things now ?

Such as,
https://phab.enlightenment.org/rEFL1c27529363faa90450685140b7fa552fb24ab546
https://phab.enlightenment.org/rEFLdb13fbc4940ee619b1edf47e6bbb745b769a7dcb
....

I just want to check whether I'm missing something.

It seems that many legacy eo files are considered in P265.
(e.g. elm_xxx, evas_xxx, edje_xxx, ecore_xxx)

I think that we can consider other eo files first and then later we can think about the legacy eo files.
(I think it would be fine that we do not consider at all the legacy eo files if we do not have enough time for this.)

The following eo files look like legacy but they are referenced by other new efl interface.
It seems that the following eo files should be renamed or the reference should be removed.

elm_general.eot
elm_interface_scrollable.eo
elm_widget_item.eo
edje_types.eot

In T5719#129918, @bu5hm4n wrote:

For getting a detailed view to what is going on, please clone https://github.com/marcelhollerbach/efl-utility.

Build the project using meson.

then run EOLIAN_CLASS_UNIMPLEMENTED_WARN=1 ./efl-check <path-to-efl>/src/lib

This will output a huge amount of eolian error data. pipe this into a file using
EOLIAN_CLASS_UNIMPLEMENTED_WARN=1 ./efl-check <path-to-efl>/src/lib 2> ./error

after that you can run the script ´./efl-missing-api ./error´ this will print the structured output to a file.

I created an issue ticket since this doesn't build from git. Also when running efl-check I get eolian: could not parse files. This is on a completely clean efl tree.

In T5719#130575, @woohyun wrote:

@zmike

Then, why are we handling legacy things now ?

Such as,
https://phab.enlightenment.org/rEFL1c27529363faa90450685140b7fa552fb24ab546
https://phab.enlightenment.org/rEFLdb13fbc4940ee619b1edf47e6bbb745b769a7dcb
....

I just want to check whether I'm missing something.

Eolian syntax cannot be stabilized until all unimplemented apis are resolved. This means that anything using eo (including legacy) must have this resolved.

If legacy code did not use eolian then this would not be an issue; T7463 may be a means to resolving the eolian-related issues, but then there would still be runtime errors that would be undetectable.

@zmike
Ok ~ I got your point well, and also check T7436 together.
Thank you !

In T5719#130649, @woohyun wrote:

@zmike
Ok ~ I got your point well, and also check T7436 together.
Thank you !

Sorry, this was the wrong ticket. I meant T7463.

In T5719#130622, @zmike wrote:

In T5719#129918, @bu5hm4n wrote:

For getting a detailed view to what is going on, please clone https://github.com/marcelhollerbach/efl-utility.

Build the project using meson.

then run EOLIAN_CLASS_UNIMPLEMENTED_WARN=1 ./efl-check <path-to-efl>/src/lib

This will output a huge amount of eolian error data. pipe this into a file using
EOLIAN_CLASS_UNIMPLEMENTED_WARN=1 ./efl-check <path-to-efl>/src/lib 2> ./error

after that you can run the script ´./efl-missing-api ./error´ this will print the structured output to a file.

I created an issue ticket since this doesn't build from git. Also when running efl-check I get eolian: could not parse files. This is on a completely clean efl tree.

This message is ignored by the script, and cannot be avoided, since eolian errors out on such errors, and does not just warn.
The problem with the dependency is fixed.

So the error message is normal and occurs at the end of the run? Just checking, since I thought it meant that the run was prematurely aborted.

Yes exactly.

So what is happening is that eolian is trying to parse the classes that result from parsing the .eo files in its search tree. Those classes can have errors like the unimplemented API, so if this orrurse then its printing an error. And after that, it will continue validating the next class. If it recognizes in the end that there was an error, then it will print the message that you refered to above :)