I'm trying to make a simple change in the domain classes generated by JHipster 7.9.3, I just want to change the sequenceGenerator name:
get [POST_WRITING_ENTITIES_PRIORITY]() {
this.log(`[DEBUG] POST_WRITING_ENTITIES_PRIORITY: get`);
return {
async postWritingTemplateTask() {
const asEntityClass = this.asEntity(this.entity.name);
this.editFile( `${SERVER_MAIN_SRC_DIR}${this.jhipsterConfig.packageFolder}/domain/${asEntityClass}.java`, content => {
return content.replaceAll(' = "sequenceGenerator"', ` = "seq${asEntityClass}"`);
});
},
};
}
The problem is that the "get" function is never called.
When I tried to use the priority POST_WRITING_PRIORITY, the content of entity classes don't have the content still processed, the content is something like the following:
#Schema(description = "not an ignored comment")
<&- fragments.annotationSection() -&>
#SuppressWarnings("common-java:DuplicatedBlocks")
public class MyEntity <&- fragments.extendsSection() -&>implements Serializable<&- fragments.additionalInterfacesSection() -&> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
Finally, I tried to use the END_PRIORITY. It kind of works, but it always asks for confirmation to overwrite the files.
Is there a better way to customize the domain classes generated by JHipster?
Regards,
I've found out my mistake! I was inheriting my generator from the wrong class:
import EntityServerGenerator from 'generator-jhipster/esm/generators/entity-server';
...
export default class extends EntityServerGenerator {
...
}
After the following change, the problem was partially solved. Now, the "get" function is called and the functions returned by it are called also.
import { GeneratorBaseEntities } from 'generator-jhipster';
...
export default class extends GeneratorBaseEntities {
...
}
However, the content of entities classes still have those "fragments" notation:
#Schema(description = "not an ignored comment")
<&- fragments.annotationSection() -&>#SuppressWarnings("common-java:DuplicatedBlocks")
public class MyEntity <&- fragments.extendsSection() -&>implements Serializable<&- fragments.additionalInterfacesSection() -&> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
Related
How to call "functionA" from "ClassA" in "functionB" inside "ClassB" ?
class Base extends BaseController
{
public function header()
{
echo view('common/header');
echo view('common/header-nav');
}
}
class Example extends BaseController
{
public function myfunction()
// how to call function header from base class
return view('internet/swiatlowod');
}
}
Well there are many ways to do this...
One such way, might be like...
Assume that example.php is the required Frontend so we will need a route to it.
In app\Config\Routes.php we need the entry
$routes->get('/example', 'Example::index');
This lets us use the URL your-site dot com/example
Now we need to decide how we want to use the functions in Base inside Example. So we could do the following...
<?php namespace App\Controllers;
class Example extends BaseController {
protected $base;
/**
* This is the main entry point for this example.
*/
public function index() {
$this->base = new Base(); // Create an instance
$this->myfunction();
}
public function myfunction() {
echo $this->base->header(); // Output from header
echo view('internet/swiatlowod'); // Output from local view
}
}
When and where you use new Base() is up to you, but you need to use before you need it (obviously).
You could do it in a constructor, you could do it in a parent class and extend it so it is common to a group of controllers.
It's up to you.
I am trying to inject the IApplicationConfigurationSection implementation into this MVC5 Controller, so that I can have access to some of the information (various strings) from my web.config custom section in all of my views:
public class BaseController : Controller
{
public IApplicationConfigurationSection AppConfig { get; set; }
public BaseController()
{
ViewBag.AppConfig = AppConfig; // AppConfig is always null
}
}
I want to use setter injection so I don't have to clutter up my derived Controller constructors with parameters that they don't really care about.
Note: If there is a better way to inject base class dependencies, please let me know. I admit I may not be on the right track here.
In my Global.asax I load my StructureMap configurations:
private static IContainer _container;
protected void Application_Start()
{
_container = new Container();
StructureMapConfig.Configure(_container, () => Container ?? _container);
// redacted other registrations
}
My StructureMapConfig class loads my registries:
public class StructureMapConfig
{
public static void Configure(IContainer container, Func<IContainer> func)
{
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new StructureMapDependencyResolver(func));
container.Configure(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddRegistries(new Registry[]
{
new MvcRegistry(),
// other registries redacted
});
});
}
}
My MvcRegistry provides the mapping for StructureMap:
public class MvcRegistry : Registry
{
public MvcRegistry()
{
For<BundleCollection>().Use(BundleTable.Bundles);
For<RouteCollection>().Use(RouteTable.Routes);
For<IPrincipal>().Use(() => HttpContext.Current.User);
For<IIdentity>().Use(() => HttpContext.Current.User.Identity);
For<ICurrentUser>().Use<CurrentUser>();
For<HttpSessionStateBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpSessionStateWrapper(HttpContext.Current.Session));
For<HttpContextBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current));
For<HttpServerUtilityBase>()
.Use(() => new HttpServerUtilityWrapper(HttpContext.Current.Server));
For<IApplicationConfigurationSection>()
.Use(GetConfig());
Policies.SetAllProperties(p => p.OfType<IApplicationConfigurationSection>());
}
private IApplicationConfigurationSection GetConfig()
{
var config = ConfigurationManager.GetSection("application") as ApplicationConfigurationSection;
return config; // this always returns a valid instance
}
}
I have also "thrown my hands up" and tried using the [SetterProperty] attribute on the BaseController - that technique failed as well.
Despite my best efforts to find a solution, the AppConfig property in my controller's constructor is always null. I thought that
`Policies.SetAllProperties(p => p.OfType<IApplicationConfigurationSection>());`
would do the trick, but it didn't.
I have found that if I discard setter injection and go with constructor injection, it works as advertised. I'd still like to know where I'm going wrong, but I'd like to stress that I'm not a StructureMap guru - there may be a better way to avoid having to constructor-inject my base class dependencies. If you know how I should be doing this but am not, please share.
While constructor injection in this scenario appears to be the better solution to the stated problem as it follows The Explicit Dependencies Principle
Methods and classes should explicitly require (typically through method parameters or constructor parameters) any collaborating objects they need in order to function correctly.
The mention of only needing to access the AppConfig in your views leads me to think that this is more of an XY problem and a cross cutting concern.
It appears that the controllers themselves have no need to use the dependency so stands to reason that there is no need to be injecting them into the controller explicitly just so that the dependency is available to the View.
Consider using an action filter that can resolve the dependency and make it available to the View via the same ViewBag as the request goes through the pipeline.
public class AccessesAppConfigAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) {
var resolver = DependencyResolver.Current;
var appConfig = (IApplicationConfigurationSection)resolver.GetService(typeof(IApplicationConfigurationSection));
filterContext.Controller.ViewBag.AppConfig = appConfig;
}
}
This now makes the required information available to the views with out tight coupling of the controllers that may have a use for it. Removing the need to inject the dependency into derived classes.
Either via adorning Controller/Action with the filter attribute
[AccessesAppConfig] //available to all its actions
public class HomeController : Controller {
//[AccessesAppConfig] //Use directly if want to isolate to single action/view
public ActionResult Index() {
//...
return View();
}
}
or globally for all requests.
public class FilterConfig {
public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters) {
filters.Add(new AccessesAppConfigAttribute());
}
}
At this point it really does not matter which IoC container is used. Once the dependency resolver has been configured, Views should have access to the required information in the ViewBag
How to bind mock of final class in Jukito ?
For example :
public final class SomeFinalClass(){
public SomeFinalClass(String someString){
}
}
//Testing class
#Runwith(JukitoRunner.class)
public class TestingClass(){
#Inject
private SomeFinalClass someFinalClassMock;
public static class TestModule extends JukitoModule {
#Override
protected void configureTest() {
// bind(SomeClient.class).in(TestSingleton.class);
}
#Provides
public SomeFinalClass getSomkeFinalClass() {
return Mokito.mock(SomeFinalClass.class); //throws error
}
}
}
Is there a way i can use PowerMockito with JukitoRunner ?
You can mock a final class if you're using Mockito 2. From Mockito 2 Wiki:
Mocking of final classes and methods is an incubating, opt-in feature. It uses a combination of Java agent instrumentation and subclassing in order to enable mockability of these types. As this works differently to our current mechanism and this one has different limitations and as we want to gather experience and user feedback, this feature had to be explicitly activated to be available ; it can be done via the mockito extension mechanism by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line: mock-maker-inline.
After you created this file, Mockito will automatically use this new engine and one can do :
final class FinalClass {
final String finalMethod() { return "something"; }
}
FinalClass concrete = new FinalClass();
FinalClass mock = mock(FinalClass.class);
given(mock.finalMethod()).willReturn("not anymore");
assertThat(mock.finalMethod()).isNotEqualTo(concrete.finalMethod());
Given this class:
class Foo
{
readonly ILog log;
public Foo(ILog log)
{
this.log = log;
}
...
}
I'd like to configure Unity to inject ILog. That's easy:
container.RegisterInstance<ILog>(LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(XYZ)));
But I'd like to make Unity call LogManager.GetLogger with the type of the parent type being resolved.
This is close:
container.RegisterType<ILog>(new InjectionFactory((c, t, s) => LogManager.GetLogger(t)));
But t in this case is the type being resolved (ILog), not the type that the object is being resolved for (Foo).
I know I can do this:
container.RegisterType<Foo>(new InjectionFactory(c => new Foo(LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(Foo)));
But I don't want to have to add that crazy declaration every time I register an object.
I know this can be done in Autofac, and I know the Real Answer is not to use Unity in the first place, but can this be done? :)
Unity might not give you all the goodies some of the other containers offer but I have yet to find a feature you can't easily add.
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.AddNewExtension<TrackingExtension>();
container.RegisterType<ILog>(
new InjectionFactory((ctr, type, name) =>
{
var tracker = ctr.Resolve<ITracker>();
var parentType = tracker.CurrentBuildNode.Parent.BuildKey.Type;
return LogManager.GetLogger(parentType);
}));
var sut = container.Resolve<UsesLog>();
Assert.AreEqual(typeof(UsesLog), sut.Log.Type);
You can find the source code for the TrackingExtension here. Its located in the TecX.Unity project folder.
If you want a DI container to return you a logger based on the class’ type information, then put the type information into the public interface so the DI container can see it. It removes the need for any container specific override features and then it won’t matter if you are using Unity or AutoFac.
Someone that knows the log4net object model well might be able to give you a more efficient implementation, but try something like this:
using System;
using Microsoft.Practices.Unity;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
namespace UnityLoging
{
public interface ILog<T> : log4net.ILog
{ }
public class MyLogger<T> : log4net.Core.LogImpl, ILog<T>
{
public MyLogger() : base(log4net.LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(T).Name).Logger)
{ }
}
public class ClassToLog
{
private readonly log4net.ILog log;
public ClassToLog(ILog<ClassToLog> log)
{
this.log = log;
}
public void LogMe()
{
log.Debug("Got here");
}
}
[TestClass]
public class TestClass
{
[TestMethod]
public void GenericLogRegistrationTest()
{
log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator.Configure();
IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType(typeof(ILog<>), typeof(MyLogger<>));
ClassToLog c = container.Resolve<ClassToLog>();
c.LogMe();
log4net.LogManager.Shutdown();
}
}
}
This seems like a very clean approach: https://github.com/roblevine/UnityLoggingExtensions
I'm trying to design an application following Misko Heverys insights. It's an interesting experiment and a challenge. Currently I'm struggling with my ViewHelper implementation.
The ViewHelper decouples the model from the view. In my implementation it wraps the model and provides the API for the view to use. I'm using PHP, but I hope the implementation is readable for everyone:
class PostViewHelper {
private $postModel;
public function __construct(PostModel $postModel) {
$this->postModel = $postModel;
}
public function title() {
return $this->postModel->getTitle();
}
}
In my template (view) file this could be called like this:
<h1><?php echo $this->post->title(); ?></h1>
So far so good. The problem I have is when I want to attach a filter to the ViewHelpers. I want to have plugins that filter the output of the title() call. The method would become like this:
public function title() {
return $this->filter($this->postModel->getTitle());
}
I need to get observers in there, or an EventHandler, or whatever service (in what I see as a newable, so it needs to be passed in through the stack). How can I do this following the principles of Misko Hevery? I know how I can do this without it. I'm interested in how for I can take it and currently I don't see a solution. ViewHelper could be an injectable too, but then getting the model in there is the problem.
I didn't find the blog post you referenced very interesting or insightful.
What you are describing seems more like a Decorator than anything to do with dependency injection. Dependency injection is how you construct your object graphs, not their state once constructed.
That said, I'd suggest taking your Decorator pattern and running with it.
interface PostInterface
{
public function title();
}
class PostModel implements PostInterface
{
public function title()
{
return $this->title;
}
}
class PostViewHelper implements PostInterface
{
public function __construct(PostInterface $post)
{
$this->post = $post;
}
public function title()
{
return $this->post->title();
}
}
class PostFilter implements PostInterface
{
public function __construct(PostInterface $post)
{
$this->post = $post;
}
public function title()
{
return $this->filter($this->post->title());
}
protected function filter($str)
{
return "FILTERED:$str";
}
}
You'd simply use whatever DI framework you have to build this object graph like so:
$post = new PostFilter(new PostViewHelper($model)));
I often use this approach when building complex nested objects.
One problem you might run into is defining "too many" functions in your PostInterface. It can be a pain to have to implement these in every decorator class. I take advantage of the PHP magic functions to get around this.
interface PostInterface
{
/**
* Minimal interface. This is the accessor
* for the unique ID of this Post.
*/
public function getId();
}
class SomeDecoratedPost implements PostInterface
{
public function __construct(PostInterface $post)
{
$this->_post = $post;
}
public function getId()
{
return $this->_post->getId();
}
/**
* The following magic functions proxy all
* calls back to the decorated Post
*/
public function __call($name, $arguments)
{
return call_user_func_array(array($this->_post, $name), $arguments);
}
public function __get($name)
{
return $this->_post->get($name);
}
public function __set($name, $value)
{
$this->_post->__set($name, $value);
}
public function __isset($name)
{
return $this->_post->__isset($name);
}
public function __unset($name)
{
$this->_post->__unset($name);
}
}
With this type of decorator in use, I can selectively override whatever method I need to provide the decorated functionality. Anything I don't override is passed back to the underlying object. Multiple decorations can occur all while maintaining the interface of the underlying object.