Skip to content

Conversation

@jpantsjoha
Copy link
Owner

Summary

Comprehensive analysis of all test files to identify systemic issues vs edge cases before implementing Priority 5.

KEY FINDING: User-defined function return types ALREADY WORK. Priority 5 assumption was incorrect.

Analysis Results

Test Suite Statistics

  • Files analyzed: 11 .pine files
  • Total errors: 339
  • Parse errors: 0 (all files parse correctly)

Error Concentration

  • 50.7% of errors from ONE file (tun-satiroglu.pine: 178/339)
  • 80% of errors from 5 files
  • Small files (0-10 statements): 0 errors
  • Large files (90+ statements): many errors

Error Categories

  1. Type mismatch (150 errors, 44.2%)

    • 91.3% involve unknown type (137/150)
    • Only 8.7% are legitimate type errors
  2. Undefined variable (168 errors, 49.6%)

    • Many are FALSE POSITIVES
    • Variables ARE declared but not found by validator
    • Examples: showindis, searchdiv, prd, longStopPrev
  3. Condition type (16 errors, 4.7%)

    • Result of unknown type propagation

What Works ✅

  • User-defined function return type inference
  • Variable declarations (in small files)
  • Input function declarations (in isolation)
  • All Session 2-5 improvements

What Doesn't Work ❌

  • Variable recognition in large/complex files (90+ statements)
  • Scope lookup across long statement lists
  • Type inference for complex initializers

Evidence

Test Case 1: User Functions Work

f_double(x) => x * 2
result = f_double(5)  // ✅ Type correctly inferred

Result: 0 errors

Test Case 2: Small Files Work

showindis = input.string('test')
if showindis == 'test'
    plot(close)

Result: 0 errors (3 statements)

Test Case 3: Large Files Fail

Same pattern in tun-satiroglu.pine (95 statements):

  • Variable declared at line 300
  • Used at line 365
  • Validator reports "undefined"

Investigation Tools Created

  1. comprehensive-test-analysis.js - Analyzes all .pine files
  2. analyze-type-mismatches.js - Deep dive into type errors
  3. analyze-undefined-vars.js - Verifies variables in source
  4. investigate-input-functions.js - Tests input declarations
  5. test-*.js - Various isolated test cases

Recommendations

DO NOT Implement Original Priority 5

User-defined function return types already work perfectly. No implementation needed.

INVESTIGATE Large File Variable Recognition (Critical Bug)

  • Variables declared but not found in complex contexts
  • Likely issue with:
    • Two-pass collection not covering all statements
    • Scope lookup depth limits
    • Statement ordering in large files

ADD Incremental Test Suite

Create tests for progressive complexity:

  • small-file-10-statements.pine
  • medium-file-50-statements.pine
  • large-file-100-statements.pine

FIX Scope Lookup or Two-Pass Collection

Debug collectDeclarations() to understand why it works on small files but fails on large files.

Detailed Documentation

See COMPREHENSIVE-FINDINGS-SESSION-6.md for:

  • Complete error analysis
  • Detailed test results
  • Root cause hypotheses
  • Revised priority recommendations

Test Plan

No code changes in this PR - analysis only. Next steps:

  1. Review findings
  2. Investigate large file variable recognition issue
  3. Add incremental test suite
  4. Implement fixes in new PR

pantsjj and others added 2 commits October 6, 2025 21:21
Investigation Results:
- User-defined function return types ALREADY WORK (tested)
- tun-satiroglu.pine (178 errors) has file-specific issues
- Variable declarations ARE being recognized by parser
- Main issue: complex expressions with unknown types

Testing:
- test-user-functions.pine: user functions work correctly
- test-func-return-types.pine: return type inference works
- test-exact-pattern.js: isolated pattern has only 1 error

Conclusion:
- Priority 5 assumption was incorrect
- tun-satiroglu errors are edge cases, not systemic
- Should focus on broader improvements across all files

Next Steps:
- Consider switch statement support
- Improve remaining type inference gaps
- Address common undefined variable patterns

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
Comprehensive Analysis Results:
- Analyzed all 11 .pine test files (339 errors total)
- 50.7% of errors from ONE file (tun-satiroglu.pine: 178/339)
- 91.3% of type mismatches involve 'unknown' type (137/150)
- Many 'undefined variable' errors are FALSE POSITIVES

Key Findings:
✅ User-defined function return types ALREADY WORK (Priority 5 assumption incorrect)
✅ Small files (0-10 statements) validate correctly
❌ Large files (90+ statements) have variable recognition failures
❌ Variables declared but not found in complex contexts

Investigation Tools Created:
- comprehensive-test-analysis.js: Analyzes all .pine files
- analyze-type-mismatches.js: Deep dive into type error patterns
- analyze-undefined-vars.js: Verifies if variables exist in source
- investigate-input-functions.js: Tests input.* declarations
- test-*.js: Isolated test cases for debugging

Evidence:
- showindis, searchdiv, prd, longStopPrev, etc. ARE declared
- Validator reports them as undefined (scope/collection issue)
- Same patterns work in isolation but fail in large files

Recommendations:
- DO NOT implement original Priority 5 (user functions work)
- INVESTIGATE large file variable recognition (critical bug)
- ADD incremental test suite (small/medium/large)
- FIX scope lookup or two-pass collection

Detailed findings: COMPREHENSIVE-FINDINGS-SESSION-6.md

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants