[[PageOutline]]

= Module and Function Dependencies =

== Concerning terminology ==
We say that a module A is '''dependent''' on another '''module''' ''B'' (''A -> B'') if there is
at least one function call from ''A'' to ''B''. \\
A '''cyclic dependency''' appears, when ''B'' is
also dependent directly (''B -> A'') or indirectly (e.g. ''B -> C -> A'') from ''A''. \\

If one wants to have a deeper analysis and pays more
attention to the concerning functions, a '''function''' level query should be done. \\ In
our previous example, no function level cycle appears, unless ''A:foo'' calls ''B:foo'',
and ''B:foo'' calls ''A:foo''. \\

Note that it is possible to have a cyclic dependency among the modules while having
no cyclic dependencies among the functions. \\ For example, a function call from
''A:foo'' to ''B:foo'', and from ''B:foo2'' to ''A:foo2'' implies a cyclic dependency on the
module level. \\
\\

== Possible Analysis ==

There are different kind of examinations that can be run considering dependencies. \\

First of all, the possibility of ''checking for cycles'' on RefactorErl database. This means
that the program is going to look for loops on the given level, and returns with the path of the cycles. \\

If one wants to have a more visual view of the dependencies, there is the ''draw'' option. This will generate a ''.dot'' file, which latter can be converted to a desired image file format. Since in the case of a vast database, the generated picture of dependencies can be very complex and hard to figure out, there are different options how the user can narrow down the result, and get a more easier understandable view. For instance, it is possible just to receive an image of the graph which contains only the cycles, or to exclude the OTP modules from the result. \\
In every dependency option there is the opportunity to run the examination from a given function/module or a list of them.

\\

Dependency analysis can be done through '''two''' interfaces: \\

1. ''ri'' (using RefactorErl through console interface)
2. using the ''web'' interface. (see: wiki:WebInterface/DependencyExaminations) \\


== The ''ri'' ==

The two interface functions are:

1. 
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep/1
}}}
    - for drawing
2. 
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep/1
}}}
    - for listing, printing out to the standard output \\
\\
\\
\\
To call the desired query, the user should give a ''proplist'', stating the different requirements. \\
   The options and the keys for the functions are:
*
{{{#!erlang
{level, Level}
    Level = mod | func
}}}
  Stating the level of the query, module or function level.
*
{{{#!erlang
{type, Type}
     Type = all | cycles
}}}
   The investigation should be done on the whole graph/table, or just on the cycle part (if it exists). \\
   When listing out the cycles, {{{all}}} gives back the result in their graph node form, while {{{cycles}}} returns with their proper
   names.
*
{{{#!erlang
{gnode, Node | lists(Node)}
    Node = node() | Name
    Name = Module::atom() | Function::string()
}}} 
   Specify a node or nodes (given in a list) as a starting point for the analysis. \\
     - Module level: the name as an atom \\
     - Function level: name as string ("Module:Function/Arity"). \\
     - In both cases the node/nodes can be given as graph nodes as well.\\
*
{{{#!erlang
{dot, Dot::string()}
}}}
   The user can stipulate his own name and absolute path or the generated {{{.dot}}} file. 
   Unless it is a new absolute path, the {{{.dot}}} file will be placed into
   the {{{./dep_files}}} directory. Only available in the case of draw_dep.
*
{{{#!erlang
{exception, NodeList::lists(Node)}
     Node = node() | Name
     Name = Module::atom() | Function::string()
}}} 
   The exception key gives the user the opportunity to define certain nodes (by stating their name or by giving a gnode) which
   will be exluded from the analysis.
*
{{{#!erlang
{leaves, NodeList::lists(Node)}
     Node = node() | Name
     Name = Module::atom() | Function::string()
}}} 
   Leaves contains those nodes which would be included in the analysis, but their children won't (so this way they become exceptions).
*
{{{#!erlang
{otp, true | false}
}}}
   The built-in erlang otp modules should be included in the analysis or not. The default value is false.

=== Examples for listing results ===



* Checking for cycles in module level. \\
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep([{level, mod}, {type, all}]).
}}}
  

* Checking for cycles in function level, and printing out the whole names of the functions (Module:Function/Arity). \\
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep([{level, func}, {type, cycles}]).


  6 cycle(s), 
  [['foo:fv4/1','foo:fv4/1'],
  ['test3:p/1','test:fv6/1','test3:p/1'],
  ['cycle4:f4/1','cycle3:f3/1','cycle4:f4/1'],
  ['cycle2:fv2/1','cycle1:fv1/0','cycle2:fv2/1'],
  ['test:fv5/1','test:fv4/2','test:fv5/1'],
  ['cycle4:f5/1','cycle3:f6/1','cycle4:f5/1']]
}}}


* Checking for cycles in function level, and printing out the graph nodes of the functions (notice the changed "type" in the proplist) \\
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep([{level, func}, {type, all}]).

  "6 cycle(s)",
  {[[{'$gn',func,28},{'$gn',func,28}], 
  [{'$gn',func,29},{'$gn',func,37},{'$gn',func,29}],
  [{'$gn',func,7},{'$gn',func,9},{'$gn',func,7}],
  [{'$gn',func,2},{'$gn',func,1},{'$gn',func,2}],
  [{'$gn',func,36},{'$gn',func,35},{'$gn',func,36}],
  [{'$gn',func,8},{'$gn',func,6},{'$gn',func,8}]]}
}}}

* Checking for cycles in module level from an exact node \\
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep([{level, mod}, {gnode, {'$gn', module, 24}}]). 

         {true,[[{'$gn',module,24},
         {'$gn',module,25},
         {'$gn',module,24}]]}
}}}


* Checking for cycles in function level from an exact node given with its whole name \\
{{{#!erlang
ri:print_dep([{level, func}, {gnode, "cycle4:f5/1"}]).
}}}

== Representation ==

=== Function Level ===
Let's take an example to explain the meaning of the representation of
dependency graphs.  A {{{ri:draw_dep([{level, func}, {type, all}])}}}
call was made, which generated a ''Graphviz dot file''. \\
 
[[Image(dep_fun_before.png, 700px)]]

Explanation of the figure:

* ROOT triangle - no actual purpose, functioning as a starting point, only appears in the representation
* Rectangle/box nodes (eg.: {{{cycle1, a, test2}}}) - representing modules (colour: ''deep purple'')
* Hexagon nodes (eg.: {{{f1/1, apply/3, test2/2}}}) - representing functions (colour: ''black'')
* Double octagon nodes - representing opaque nodes (colour: ''black'', label colour: ''gray'')
* Solid, continuous edge, normal arrowhead - normal edge indicating the modules from the root, and the
	modules and their definitions of functions (colour: ''black'')
* Dashed edge, normal arrowhead - indicates that a function calls another function ({{{funcall}}}) (colour: ''black'')
* Dashed edge, special arrowhead - indicated a function call, but also that it is a cyclic edge (colour: ''red'')


The next figure was made after a {{{ri:anal_dyn()}}} was run, which is a dynamic analyser. Due to its work the call graph changes a bit, 
new types of nodes and edges are introduced.

[[Image(dep_fun_after.png, 900px)]]

Explanation of figure, new nodes, edges:

* Double octagon nodes - representing opaque, -1 arity nodes (colour: ''black'', label colour: ''gray'')
* Dotted edge, normal arrowhead - indicates an {{{ambcall, dyncall, may_be edge}}} (colour: ''black'')

Every node and edge have tooltips. In the case of nodes it shows the
adequate graph node, while considering edges it depicts the type of
function call ({{{funcall, may_be, ambcall, dyncall}}}). Static calls are labelled by {{{funcall}}}.

{{{Dyncall}}} means unambiguous dynamic calls, when the identifiers
of the callee may be defined not at the call but at another program
part, and their values are can be calculated by data-flow
reaching. {{{Ambcall}}} relation denotes the fact that some of the
arguments of the dynamic function call can not be detected
statically. If the number of parameters is uncertain, then after the
arity of the function will be -1. It is also indicated with a special
node. For further details about the dynamic calls and their
representation can be found in (wiki:DynamicCallAnalysis). When the
applied function or module is uncertain, the tool represents it with
an {{{opaque}}} node, and connects the possible functions/modules
with {{{may_be}}} edges.  The representation in the analysis now
follows this, indicating the opaque nodes differently (described in
the previous section, concerning drawings).

We note here that tooltips may not be shown under certain browsers
(for example Mozilla Firefox 7.0.1). If this happens, please try
another browser.


=== Module Level ===

Similarly, at module level, after calling {{{ri:draw_dep([{level, mod}, {type, all}])}}}, an analogous figure can be achieved. \\

[[Image(dep_mod.png, 500px)]]

Explanation of figure:
* Rectangle/box nodes (eg.: {{{cycle1, erlang, test2}}}) - representing modules (colour: ''deep purple'')
* Doubleoctagon nodes (no example on the figure) - representing opaque nodes (colour: ''black'', label colour: ''gray'')
* Dotted edge, normal arrowhead - indicates that a module calls another module (colour: ''black'')
* Dotted edge, special arrowhead - indicated a module call, but also that it is a cyclic edge (colour: ''red'')


The tooltip for edges shows a list the function pair: \\
{{{Call = {callee, called}, Tooltip = [] | [Call | Tooltip]}}} \\
Latter makes a connection between the modules with this call.

=== Examples for the representation of the results === 


*
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep([{level, mod}, {gnode, erlang}]).
}}}
*
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep([{level, mod}, {gnode, erlang}, {dot, "/home/working/dot/test.dot" }]).
}}}
*
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep([{level, func}, {gnode, "lists:hd/1"}]).
}}}
*
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep([{level, mod},{gnode, {'$gn', module, 4}}]).
}}}
*
{{{#!erlang
ri:draw_dep([{type, cycles}, {level, func}, {gnode, {'$gn', func, 36}}]).
}}}