It is interesting to see the use of the A* path finding algorithm for finding optimal matchings of nodes.
The approach from Chawathe et. al splits nodes from the before/after trees into chains by their label in the syntax grammar, and then runs myers’ longest common subsequence on each pair of chains. Some parameters t, f are used to have an approximate ‘equals’ method for subtrees.
I’d be curious to see if this approach handles re-ordering of nodes better. The ‘fastMatch’ algorithm described above will typically miss matching cases where a node that is not order sensitive (i.e a function in a namespace can be moved somewhere else in that namespace).
The approach from Chawathe et. al splits nodes from the before/after trees into chains by their label in the syntax grammar, and then runs myers’ longest common subsequence on each pair of chains. Some parameters t, f are used to have an approximate ‘equals’ method for subtrees.
This iteratively builds a set of matchings between equivalent nodes from the old and new trees. Here’s the paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/235968.233366
I’d be curious to see if this approach handles re-ordering of nodes better. The ‘fastMatch’ algorithm described above will typically miss matching cases where a node that is not order sensitive (i.e a function in a namespace can be moved somewhere else in that namespace).