Skip to main content

debugging - How to find out where an error occurs?


I got this error when using Mathematica:



Part::partw: "Part 5 of {{0.637537,0.362463},{0.00038282,0.999617},

{0.0928437,0.907156},{0.0000222833,0.999978}} does not exist."

I know why it is generated, but the problem is my code is so lengthy and I cannot find where it comes from. Is there any syntax in Mathematica by which I can resolve my problem? Thanks.



Answer



Implementation


Here is a better version of my debug function posted here, which would print the stack on the first message generated, and abort the computation. I have used it extensively with great effect in many cases.


This constructs the nested OpenerView from an arbitrary expression:


ClearAll[openerDress];
SetAttributes[openerDress, HoldAll];
openerDress[f_[args___]]:=

  OpenerView[{
    HoldForm[f],
    HoldForm[f]@@Map[openerDress,Unevaluated[{args}]]
  }];
openerDress[x_]:=HoldForm[x];

This uses openerDress to represent stack of execution in a way that is expandable when clicked:


ClearAll[stackPrettify];
stackPrettify[stack : {__HoldForm}] :=
  Column @ {

    Replace[stack, HoldForm[f_[x___]] :> openerDress[f[x]], 1],
    Style[Map[Short, Last[stack], {2}], Red]
  };
stackPrettify[___] := Null;

This is a generator of dynamic environments with redefined functions, encapsulating the Villegas - Gayley technique:


ClearAll[withRedefined];
withRedefined[f_Symbol, extraCondition_, beforeF_, afterF_]:=
  Function[
    code

    ,
    Internal`InheritedBlock[{f},
      Module[{inF, dv = DownValues[f]},
        Unprotect[f];
        DownValues[f]={};
        (call:f[args___]) /; extraCondition[args] && !TrueQ[inF]:=
          Block[{inF = True},
            beforeF[args];
            call;
            afterF[args]

          ];
        DownValues[f] = Join[DownValues[f],dv];
        Protect[f];
      ];
      code
    ]
    ,
    HoldAll
  ];


A couple more of the helper functions:


ClearAll[printStack];
printStack[start_, end_]:=Print[stackPrettify[Take[Stack[_], {start, end}]]];

ClearAll[heldF];
SetAttributes[heldF,  HoldAll];
heldF[body_]:=Function[Null, body, HoldAll];

Finally, this is the actual debugging utility (some formatting imperfections are due to the SE markdown bug regarding the display of symbols containing $):


ClearAll[debug];                        

debug[debugSymbol_Symbol:Message, failConditionFunction_:heldF[True]]:=
  Function[
    code
    ,
    Module[{tag},
      withRedefined[
        debugSymbol,
        heldF[!MatchQ[First[Hold[##]],_$Off]],
        heldF[If[failConditionFunction[##],printStack[6, -9]]],
        heldF[If[failConditionFunction[##], Throw[$Failed,tag]]]

      ][Catch[StackComplete[code],tag]]
    ]
    ,
    HoldAll
  ];

Tests


There are several ways one can use debug. The default one is that it breaks on first Message generated, and prints for you the stack. For example, one may try something like


debug[] @ Sin[Range[10][[1 ;; 15]]]


If you have an access to the source code which you want to debug, and can modify it, you could also use it in the following way:


ClearAll[$debugWrapper]
$debugWrapper[arg_] := arg;

and


debug[$debugWrapper][
  Sin[Part[Range[10], $debugWrapper[ 1 ;; 15]]]
]

In other words, you can wrap a piece of code where you suspect a problem, in some wrapper like $debugWrapper, and then extract the execution stack. You can also set a condition on the first event you want to trigger. For example, the following will only trigger the second event wrapped in $debugWrapper:



debug[
  $debugWrapper, 
  Function[arg, MatchQ[Unevaluated[arg], _Span], HoldAll]
][
   Sin[$debugWrapper@Part[Range[10], 1 ;; 15]];
   Sin[Part[Range[10], $debugWrapper[ 1 ;; 15]]]
]

in which case, only the second event wrapped in $debugWrapper, will be triggered.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.
Post a Comment
Read more