I'm building a web app. For my back-end, I ended up creating many different functions. Only later— when I started setting up my API— did I realize that I wanted all my functions to be asynchronous.
I probably should've had better foresight, but now I am stuck with many different functions that I do not want to manually change. The only progress I made was to find all instances of def and replace it with async def. This worked but as I am working with Python, the problem is with the await keyword.
Is there any quick way to convert all functions like this
example_function(arguments)
to this?
await example_function(arguments)
I want to quickly add await to all functions regardless of the name. This is a problem as my functions have varying names and replacing most common instances would break my app. I am working with Python in VS Code.
Turn on regex matching for the editor find-and-replace feature, then use the following search input:
([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9-_]*|[a-zA-Z_]+)\(.*\)
and the following replacement field:
await $0
You could maybe use the "Replace All" action (/ button or keyboard shortcut), but I'd be more confident going through it one by one. There might be false positives. I highly doubt every single function call you make in a file is to an asynchronous function (especially calls to ones that you didn't write).
The $0 in the replacement field means "the whole thing that was matched".
Related
I've been searching the documentation for a long time and still can't figure this out.
In the SCons documentation, there is discussion about adding a PreAction or PostAction. In the examples, they call an example method:
foo = Program('foo.c')
AddPreAction(foo, 'pre_action')
This calls 'pre_action' before 'foo.c' is compiled and linked. However, there is no explanation about what format 'pre_action' must take.
I have discovered that there are several pre-built actions, such as 'Copy'. However, I cannot find the source of 'Copy' to reverse-engineer it and write my own.
Can anyone point me to a guide as to how to create my own Actions? I either need an interface for calling my own method such as 'pre_action' above, or a guide for writing an Action class.
Really, even just some example code that is actually complete enough to use would be helpful...
The manpage section Action Objects lists the types of things that can be passed to the Action factory function to create an action; that is also what you pass to AddPostAction and AddPreAction as the second argument - that is, either an Action already made by a previous call to Action, or something that can be converted into one like a command string, or a list of such, or a function with appropriate signature. Pre/Post will simply call the Action function with that argument. So in that section, where there's an example with a call to Action, you could just plug that argument into AddPreAction, or you could save the result of calling Action and give that as the argument to AddPreAction.
The amount of flexibility here makes it a little tricky to document concisely.
(btw the source to Copy is a function called copy_func but you probably don't want to use that form because it's a couple of extra levels of abstraction you won't need)
I am working on Verigy 93K test program and I have a logic that I would like to know if there's an equivalent code in Origen.
I am working on Verigy 93K test program and I have this logic (IF condition) that I need to insert in my flow.
Basically, I have a variable called 'INSERTION' and this will have different values like 'GCORR', 'VCORR' and others.
I would like to know if there's an equivalent code like this in Origen.
I attached a snapshot, hope that it can help clarify my question more.
In this logic, I would like to check the INSERTION value and if the value is not equal to GCORR or VCORR, the logic should pass, else, fail.
Here is the screenshot:
This pull-request adds an official API for this.
This example would be implemented as:
whenever_any ne(:INSERTION, 'GCORR'), ne(:INSERTION, 'VCORR') do
# Your tests in here
end
That would produce something logically equivalent and which can be re-targeted to other platforms.
If you don't care about that and want to produce exactly as you have it in the above example, then this should work too (where the OR is hard-coded for V93K syntax):
whenever ne(:INSERTION, 'GCORR|VCORR') do
# Your tests in here
end
Here is the preliminary documentation of this feature from the above PR - https://github.com/Origen-SDK/origen_testers/blob/66345c9422d9fa6b2577af20110259e45c2bdd26/templates/origen_guides/program/flowapi.md.erb#L71
I couldn't find api support on flow control or variable values beyond "if/unless_enable" support which can help check for 1 or zero. One way is to use render.
render 'if #INSERTION != "GCORR|VCORR" then'
render '{'
# your code for non-GCORR_VCORR flow
render "} \n else \n { \n } "
Lets say that there is a function in my Delphi app:
MsgBox
and there is a string which has MsgBox in it.
I know what most of you are going to say is that its possible, but I think it is possible because I opened the compiled exe(compiled using delphi XE2) using a Resource Editor, and that resource editor was built for Delphi. In that, I could see most of the code I wrote, as I wrote it. So since the variables names, function names etc aren't changed during compile, there should a way to execute the functions from a string, but how? Any help will be appreciated.
EDIT:
What I want to do is to create a simple interpreter/scripting engine. And this is how its supposed to work:
There are two files, scr.txt and arg.txt
scr.txt contains:
msg_show
0
arg.txt contains:
"Message"
And now let me explain what that 0 is:
First, scr.txt's first line is function name
second line tells that at which line its arguments are in the arg.txt, i.e 0 tells that "Message" is the argument for msg_show.
I hope my question is now clear.
I want to make a simple scripting engine.
In order to execute arbitrary code stored as text, you need a compiler or an interpreter. Either you need to write one yourself, or embed one that already exists. Realistically, the latter option is your best option. There are a number available but in my view it's hard to look past dwscript.
I think I've already solved my problem! The answer is in this question's first answer.
EDIT:
But with that, as for a workaround of the problem mentioned in first comment, I have a very easy solution.
You don't need to pass all the arguments/parameters to it. Just take my example:
You have two files, as mentioned in the question. Now you need to execute the files. It is as simple as that:
read the first line of scr.txt
check if it's a function. If not, skip the line
If yes, read the next line which tells the index where it's arguments are in arg.txt
pass on the index(an integer) to the "Call" function.
Now to the function which has to be executed, it should know how many arguments it needs. i.e 2
Lets say that the function is "Sum(a,b : integer)".It needs 2 arguments
Now let the function read the two arguments from arg.txt.
And its done!
I hope it will help you all.
And I can get some rep :)
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).
Is there any functionality in IDL that will allow it to evaluate a a string as code?
Or, failing that, is there a nice, dynamic way of including /KEYWORD in functions? For example, if I wanted to ask them for what type of map projection the user wants, is there a way to do it nicely, without large if/case statements for the /Projection_Type keyword it needs?
With even a small number of user options, the combinations would cause if/case statements to get out of hand very quickly to handle all the possible options.
The best bet is to use a case statement because you can't trust that your user is going to type in the same string for Projection_Type that you're expecting as in the keyword.
Though if you are set on doing something like this, there is the EXECUTE function that treats a string as an IDL statement:
Result = EXECUTE(String [, QuietCompile] [, QuietExecution])
Edited to add, there's also CALL_FUNCTION and CALL_PROCEDURE that are faster but maybe less flexible. Look them all up in the IDL help and see what works for you.