I know the regular function of Mockito.verify(), but I am wondering how to make it as an if condition like this:
if(verify(mocked, times(1)).method()){
//Do something when the method was called for the first time
}else if(verify(mocked, times(2)).method()){
//DO something else when the method was caled for the second time
};
Related
I am wondering if it is possible to pass the name of a function as a parameter, but have a class then call that function. I am aware that you can pass functions as parameters, but that is not what I am curious about. Below is an example of what I am looking for.
function passFunction ( functionName ) {
exampleClass.functionName();
// Do Something With result
}
Like:
exampleClass[functionName]()
but be sure to check its a function first
if (typeof exampleClass[functionName] === 'function')
exampleClass[functionName]()
I am completely new to Dialogflow and nodejs. I need to get the entity value from the argument to the function (agent) and apply if the condition on that. How can I achieve this?
I am trying below but every time I get else condition become true.
I have created an entity named about_member.
function about_member_handeller(agent)
{
if(agent.about_member=="Tarun")
{
agent.add('Yes Tarun');
}
else
{
agent.add("No tarun");
}
}
Please help.
In such cases, you may use console.log to help unleash your black box, like below:
function about_member_handeller(agent) {
console.log(JSON.stringify(agent, null, 2));
if(agent.about_member=="Tarun") {
agent.add('Yes Tarun');
}
else {
agent.add("No tarun");
}
}
JSON.stringfy() will serialize your json object into string and console.log will print the same on the stdOut. So once you run your code this will print the object structure for agent and after which you will know on how to access about_member. Because in the above code it's obvious that you are expecting about_member to be a string, but this code will let you know on the actual data in it and how to compare it.
To get the parameter you can use the following;
const valueOfParam = agent.parameters["parameterName"];
Really what I am after is a way to check if the control exists without throwing an error.
The code should look something like this:
Control myControl = UIMap.MyMainWindow;
if (!myControl.Exists)
{
//Do something here
}
The problem is that the control throws an error because it is invalid if it doesn't exist, essentially making the exists property useless.
What is the solution?
In this case I am using the tryfind method.
Like this:
HtmlDiv list = new HtmlDiv(Window.GetWebtop());
list.SearchConfigurations.Add(SearchConfiguration.AlwaysSearch);
list.SearchProperties.Add(HtmlDiv.PropertyNames.InnerText, "Processing search", PropertyExpressionOperator.Contains);
if (list.TryFind())
{
//DO Something
}
I am re-posting the comment kida gave as a answer, because I think its the best solution.
Control myControl = UIMap.MyMainWindow;
if (!myControl.FindMatchingControls().Count == 0)
{
//Do something here
}
The FindMatchingControls().Count is much faster then the Try Catch or the TryFind. Since it does not wait for SearchTimeoutto check if the element is now there. Default it waits 30 seconds for the element to not be there, but I like my tests to fail fast.
Alternatively its possible to lower the Playback.PlaybackSettings.SearchTimeout before the Catch or TryFind and restore it afterwards, but this is unnecessary code if you ask me.
You can do one of two things: Wrap your code in a try-catch block so the exception will be swallowed:
try
{
if (!myControl.Exists)
{
// Do something here.
}
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
}
Or, you could add more conditions:
if (!myControl.Exists)
{
// Do something here.
}
else if (myControlExists)
{
// Do something else.
}
else
{
// If the others don't qualify
// (for example, if the object is null), this will be executed.
}
Personally, I like the catch block, because if I expect the control to be there as part of my test, I can Assert.Fail(ex.ToString()); to stop the test right there and log the error message for use in bug reporting.
If you are sure that control will exist or enabled after some time you can use WaitForControlExist() or WaitForControlEnabled() methods with a default timeout or specified timeout.
I have a situation like this and I am looping until the control is available :
bool isSaveButtonExist = uISaveButton.WaitForControlEnabled();
while (!isSaveButtonExist )
{
try
{
uISaveButton.SearchConfigurations.Add(SearchConfiguration.AlwaysSearch);
uISaveButton.SetFocus(); // setting focus for the save button if found
isSaveButtonExist = uISaveButton.WaitForControlExist(100);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Console.WriteLine(ex.Message); // exception for every set focus message if the control not exist
}
}
// do something with found save button
// Click 'Save' button
Mouse.Click(uISaveButton, new Point(31, 37));
please refer to this link for more about these Methods:
Make playback wait methods
I thought that I had come across this before, but I can't remember when or what language it was.
Basically if I have the following in C#:
someCondition = true
if(someCondition)
{
// Do Something
if(anotherCond) {
someCondition = false;
continue;
}
// Do Something Else
}
In C# this will break out of the body of the if statement when someCondition changes, meaning that //DO Something Else only gets processed if someCondition doesn't change...
Is there a language that will do the interior if statement checking/continue automatically i.e. be able to write:
someCondition = true
if(someCondition)
{
// Do Something
if(anotherCond){
someCondition = false;
}
// Do Something Else
}
with the same behaviors as the previous? Obviously there are multiple ways to get this behavior in every language conceivable, what I am interested in is if there is a language that by design has this functionality.
Edit: Reduced the examples so hopefully people can see what is happening, when someCondition changes (i.e. the condition that the if statement relied on to begin, we should break out of the remaining if statement. I am not looking for a way to do this in C#, or any particular language, but for a language that does this automatically.
You can create a property in C# that throws an exception on any condition you set, aka truth=true. The exception will break out of the loop to wherever you have your catch.
An example in C#:
public class MyException : Exception { }
public bool truth
{
get { return _truth; }
set
{
_truth = value;
if(value)
throw new MyException();
}
}
bool _truth;
I think you can simulate what you want in C# like so:
void ExecuteWhile( Func<bool> condition,
IEnumerable<Action> executeWhileTrue,
IEnumerable<Action> executeWhileFalse)
{
if (condition())
{
foreach (Action action in executeWhileTrue)
{
action();
if (!condition())
return;
}
}
else
{
foreach (Action action in executeWhileFalse)
{
action();
if (condition())
return;
}
}
}
and then use it as such:
truth = true;
while (true) // loop forever
{
ExecuteWhile( () => truth,
new List<Action> { () => { /* do something that might set truth to false*/},
() => { /* do something else*/}},
new List<Action> { () => { /* do something that might set truth to true*/},
() => { /* do something else*/}});
}
And to answer your question: no, I don't think there is a language with this as a build-in feature.
As far as I understood, the following is wanted:
if (cond) {
A;
B;
C;
}
shall behave as if written thus:
if (cond) {
A;
if (cond) {
B;
if (cond) {
C
}
}
}
IMHO, this would be a silly feature, unlikely to be implemented in any language except maybe in INTERCAL.
Why do I think that?
Well, suppose someone wants to refactor the code and moves B;C to a subroutine.
if (cond) {
A;
BC();
}
subroutine BC() { B;C }
The block - according to our feature - will mean as before:
if (cond) {
A;
if (cond) BC();
}
But what about our subroutine? The language designer has 2 choices here:
Treat the call BC() as atomic, i.e. in the subroutine, the
condition cond is not checked before statement C. This would mean
such a simple refactoring would change the meaning of the program
drastically.
Somehow pass the information that every statement must be guarded
with cond to the subroutine so that the behaviour of our block remains
unchanged. This, of course, leads to the silly situation that the
behaviour of any subroutine would depend upon the context it was
called in. A subroutine with n atomic statements would have n possible ways to behave even if it had no arguments and would not use non local mutable state explicitely, depending on how many of the statements would be actually executed. (Note that nowadays the trend is to minimize the most often harmful effects of shared non-local state. OO languages do it with encapsulation, FP languages by banning mutable state altogether.)
In any case, no matter how the language designer decides, we would have a feature that is the direct contradiction of the principle of the least surprise. It is clear that programs in such a language would be utterly hard to maintain.
If you broke you big bunch if/else statements into succinct little methods which tested each little piece of the puzzle, you could rely on the compilers short circuit boolean evaluation
I'm not sure if that helps as your example is a big vague. You don't say if you're doing any processing or if it's just a bunch of checks. Either way, breaking your code into smaller methods may help you out.
You can use a do..while loop:
do
{
} while (truth == true);
thats if i've understood correctly!
You say while true... but while what is true. I would think your loop will run infinitely regardless of the language used. Assuming true will be a real condition... I would say just set the exit condition in one of the if blocks. You question is a bit hard to understand. Also the continue is unnecessary.
I'm trying to write a Greasemonkey script for a hierarchy of websites such that I have a bunch of code modifications for http://www.foo.com/*, then more specific ones for http://www.foo.com/bar/*, and still others for http://www.foo.com/foobar/*.
Is there anyway for me to write all these in the same script, or do I have to make multiple?
Is there anyway for me to write all
these in the same script, or do I have
to make multiple?
Yes, just use those three #includes, then in your user script do something like (depends on specifics of script):
var currentURL = (document.location+'');
if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/foobar\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set A
} else if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/foo\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set B
} else if (currentURL .match(/http:\/\/www\.foo\.com\/.*/)) {
// do stuff for page set C
}
One nifty trick I was shown for dealing with different functions at different sub-locations is to use the global directory of function names as a sort of virtual switchboard...
// do anything that is supposed to apply to the entire website above here.
var place = location.pathname.replace(/\/|\.(php|html)$/gi, "").toLowerCase();
// the regex converts from "foo/" or "foo.php" or "foo.html" to just "foo".
var handler;
if ((handler = global["at_" + place])) {
handler();
}
// end of top-level code. Following is all function definitions:
function at_foo() {
// do foo-based stuff here
}
function at_foobar() {
// do foobar stuff here.
}