Automatic Type Annotation for Dynamic Code Conversion

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Dynamic typing in programming languages leads to late detection of type safety errors and difficulties in refactoring, as it does not require prior declaration of data types for variables and function parameters, making it harder to maintain and modify code.

Innovation Solution

Implementing automatic data type annotation in dynamically-typed source code by scanning the codebase to infer and annotate data types, converting dynamically-typed variables and functions to statically-typed ones, using a conversion tool that identifies common ancestors for data types and checks for errors using a type checker.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If dynamic typing is used in programming languages, then ease of software development and simplicity are improved, but type safety error detection is delayed and code maintainability deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of software developmentVSAvoidtype safety error detection
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by performing type inference and static type checking during the compilation phase rather than at runtime. The system analyzes the dynamically-typed codebase, infers appropriate data types for variables and functions, and generates statically-typed code before execution, thereby detecting type safety errors early in the development process while maintaining the simplicity of dynamic typing syntax.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Ease of operation

If dynamic typing is used, then prior declaration of data types is not required, but code refactoring and maintenance become more difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of variable usageVSAvoidcode refactoring
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSEase of repair

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses copying by creating a static type annotation version of the dynamically-typed code. The system copies the original dynamic code structure and adds inferred type annotations to create a parallel statically-typed version, allowing developers to maintain the ease of dynamic typing while gaining the refactoring benefits of static typing through the annotated copy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Reliability

If conversion from dynamic typing to static typing is implemented, then type safety error detection is improved, but code complexity and conversion process complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetype safety error detectionVSAvoidconversion tool complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies self-service by implementing an automated type inference system that analyzes the codebase and automatically determines appropriate data types without requiring manual intervention. The conversion tool infers types from code usage patterns, generates type annotations automatically, and handles the conversion process autonomously, thereby improving type safety while minimizing the complexity burden on developers.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentUS10013245B2Systems and methods for converting typed code
Publication Date: 2018.07.03 META PLATFORMS INC
  • US10013245B2 patent drawing
  • US10013245B2 patent drawing
  • US10013245B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Techniques provided implement automatic data type annotation in dynamically-typed source code. A codebase, which may comprise a plurality of source code files, is scanned at a global level. The resulting scanned data may describe characteristics of the codebase, including variable and function usage. Based on inferences drawn from the scanning, data types are determined for different variables, expressions, or functions to facilitate conversion from dynamically-typed source code to statically-typed source code. For example, if a function is called once with a parameter value of data type A (e.g., class A), and another time with a parameter value of data type B (e.g., class B), a conversion tool may annotate the parameter variable in the declaration of the function with a data type D (e.g., class d) when data type D is identified as a common ancestor (e.g., superclass) to both data type A and data type B.