view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

lib/FSM.pm  view on Meta::CPAN

B<(warning)>, L<B<connect()> method|/connect()>.
I<START> I<{state}> is required.
It's missing.
This situation will definetely result in devastating failure later.

=item C<[connect]: FST has no {STOP} state>

B<(warning)>, L<B<connect()> method|/connect()>.
I<STOP> I<{state}> is required.
It's missing.
If FST is such that I<STOP> I<$state> can't be reached
(for whatever reasons)
this may be cosmetic.

=item C<[connect]: ignoring (%i) FST items in trailer>

B<(warning)>, L<B<connect()> method|/connect()>.
A trailer has been found and was ignored.
Beware, I<%i> could be misleading.
For HASH in trailer that HASH is considered and key number is reported.
For list in trailer an B<item> number in list is reported, even if it's twice
as many in FST (what isa hash).
Just because.

=item C<[connect]: (source): unset>

B<(warning)>, L<B<connect()> method|/connect()>.
I<$source> option isa unset, it should be.
There's no other way to feed items in.
This situation will definetely result in devastating failure later.

=item C<[connect]: stealing (%i) items in FST>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<connect()> method|/connect()>.
During object construction FST has been found.
That FST consists of I<%i> items.
Those items are I<{state}>s, not I<$state>s plus I<{state}>s.

=item C<[fst]: creating {%s} record>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
New state record has been created, named I<%s>.

=item C<[fst]: creating {%s}{%s} entry>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
New entry named I<%s> (the latter) has been created in record named I<%s> (the
former).

=item C<[fst]: no args>

B<(warning)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
No arguments, it's an error.
However, instead of promptly dieing, C<undef> is returned
in blind hope this will be devastating enough.

=item C<[fst]: (%s): no such {fst} record>

B<(warning)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
Requested entry I<%s> is missing.
State record ought to exist beforehand for any usecase except
L<record creation|/set {state} of specific $state>.

=item C<[fst]: too many args (%i)>

B<(warning)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
Too many args have been passed in.
And again, instead of prompt dieing C<undef> is returned.

=item C<[fst]: updating {%s} record>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
Named record (I<%s>) has been updated.

=item C<[fst]: updating {%s}{%s} entry>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<fst()> method|/fst()>.
Named entry (I<%s>, the latter) in record I<%s> (the former) has been updated.

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): changing state: (CONTINUE)>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
Implicit change of state from C<BREAK> to C<CONTINUE> is about to happen.

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): entering>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
Entering state flow from I<$state> I<%s> (the former) with I<$action> I<%s>
(the latter).

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): going for>

B<(deep trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
Trying to enter I<$state> I<%s> (the former) with I<$action> I<%s> (the
latter).

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): %s: going with>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
While in I<$state> I<%s> (1st) doing I<$action> I<%s> (2nd) the I<$item>
happens to be I<%s> (3rd).
C<undef> will look like this: C<((undef))>.

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): %s: turning with>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
B<switch()> (of I<$state> I<%s>, the 1st) has returned I<$rule> I<%s> (2nd)
and I<$item> I<%s>.
Now dealing with this.

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): leaving>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
Leaving state flow with I<$state> I<%s> (the former) and I<$action> I<%s> (the
latter).

=item C<[process]: {%s}(%s): switch returned: (%s)>

B<(basic trace)>, L<B<process()> method|/process()>.
B<switch()> (of I<$state> I<%s>, the 1st, with I<$action> I<%s>, the 2nd) has
been invoked and returned something that was interpreted as I<$rule> I<%s>,