I have such code:
a.b = null
a.b.c = 10 // here is NPE should be thrown
Is there way to avoid NPE by some automatic interception and initialization of b with new instance value?
In common case the object path may be long like this: a.b.c.d.e.f = 10
and any part of path may be met a null value
If you don't want to insert safe-navigation operators like a?.b?.c?.d?.e?.f = 10 you can use a macro to do this "automatically":
// I have not tried with assignment so you may need to fill a gap in the macro method
safe(a.b.c.d.e.f = 10)
// I have tested like this:
#Test
void testSafeOne() {
def objExp = null
def hashCode = safe(objExp.hashCode())
assert safe(hashCode.toString()) == null
}
#Test
void testSafeMany() {
def objExp = null
assert safe(objExp.hashCode().toString()) == null
}
#Test
void testSafeAttr() {
Integer number = null
assert safe(number.#MAX_VALUE.abs()) == null
}
#Test
void testSafeAssign() {
// TODO
}
You need to register this class through the extension mechanism:
package macros
import org.codehaus.groovy.ast.*
import org.codehaus.groovy.ast.expr.*
import org.codehaus.groovy.macro.runtime.Macro
import org.codehaus.groovy.macro.runtime.MacroContext
import static org.codehaus.groovy.ast.ClassHelper.*
import static org.codehaus.groovy.ast.tools.GeneralUtils.*
import static org.apache.groovy.ast.tools.ExpressionUtils.isThisExpression
class SafeMacroMethods {
/**
* macro version of: <code>objectExpr.?methodName()</code>
*/
#Macro
static Expression safe(MacroContext context, MethodCallExpression expression) {
if (isImplicitThis(context)) {
expression.tap { safe = true; safe(context, objectExpression) }
}
}
/**
* macro version of: <code>objectExpr.?propertyName</code>
*/
#Macro
static Expression safe(MacroContext context, PropertyExpression expression) {
if (isImplicitThis(context)) {
expression.tap {
if (getClass() == PropertyExpression) {
it.#safe = true
} else { // AttributeExpression, etc.
def field = PropertyExpression.getDeclaredField('safe')
field.accessible = true
field.set(it, true)
}
safe(context, objectExpression)
}
}
}
/**
* macro version of: <code>targetExpr ?= sourceExpr</code>
*/
#Macro
static Expression safe(MacroContext context, BinaryExpression expression) {
if (isImplicitThis(context)) {
expression.tap { safe = true; safe(context, leftExpression); safe(context, rightExpression) }
}
}
protected
static Expression safe(MacroContext context, Expression expression) {
expression
}
private static boolean isImplicitThis(MacroContext context) {
context.call.with {
isThisExpression(objectExpression) && isImplicitThis()
}
}
}
Related
Given I have JUnit tests written in Groovy:
class AssertTests {
#Test
void "explicit assert statement"() {
def value = 42
assert value == 100
}
#Test
void "no assert statement"() {
def value = 42
value == 100
}
}
When I execute them,
explicit assert statement test fails as expected thanks to assert statement.
no assert statement test passes and I would expect it to fail in a similar way how it's done when I use http://spockframework.org
How can I achieve implicit assert behavior for tests written in plain Groovy?
The answer is simple - you can't. Spock uses AST transformations to grab the code written in the then: part and transform it into the code that makes an equivalent of assertion (not the exact assert.)
To illustrate this, here is your test written in Spock:
import spock.lang.Specification
class TestSpec extends Specification {
def "should fail"() {
when:
def value = 42
then:
assert value == 100
}
}
And here is what its bytecode decompiled back to Java looks like:
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.GroovyObject;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ScriptBytecodeAdapter;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.CallSite;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ErrorCollector;
import org.spockframework.runtime.SpockRuntime;
import org.spockframework.runtime.ValueRecorder;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockKind;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.BlockMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.FeatureMetadata;
import org.spockframework.runtime.model.SpecMetadata;
import spock.lang.Specification;
#SpecMetadata(
filename = "TestSpec.groovy",
line = 5
)
public class TestSpec extends Specification implements GroovyObject {
public TestSpec() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
super();
}
#FeatureMetadata(
line = 7,
name = "should fail",
ordinal = 0,
blocks = {#BlockMetadata(
kind = BlockKind.WHEN,
texts = {}
), #BlockMetadata(
kind = BlockKind.THEN,
texts = {}
)},
parameterNames = {}
)
public void $spock_feature_0_0() {
CallSite[] var1 = $getCallSiteArray();
ErrorCollector $spock_errorCollector = (ErrorCollector)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[0].callConstructor(ErrorCollector.class, false), ErrorCollector.class);
ValueRecorder $spock_valueRecorder = (ValueRecorder)ScriptBytecodeAdapter.castToType(var1[1].callConstructor(ValueRecorder.class), ValueRecorder.class);
Object var10000;
try {
Object value = 42;
try {
SpockRuntime.verifyCondition($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder.reset(), "value == 100", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(16), (Object)null, $spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(2)), ScriptBytecodeAdapter.compareEqual($spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(0)), value), $spock_valueRecorder.record($spock_valueRecorder.startRecordingValue(Integer.valueOf(1)), 100))));
var10000 = null;
} catch (Throwable var14) {
SpockRuntime.conditionFailedWithException($spock_errorCollector, $spock_valueRecorder, "value == 100", Integer.valueOf(12), Integer.valueOf(16), (Object)null, var14);
var10000 = null;
} finally {
;
}
var1[2].call(var1[3].call(this.getSpecificationContext()));
} finally {
$spock_errorCollector.validateCollectedErrors();
var10000 = null;
}
}
}
If you look at the SpockRuntime class, you will find that verifyCondition method checks if the condition found in the then: or and: block evaluates to true:
public static void verifyCondition(#Nullable ErrorCollector errorCollector, #Nullable ValueRecorder recorder,
#Nullable String text, int line, int column, #Nullable Object message, #Nullable Object condition) {
if (!GroovyRuntimeUtil.isTruthy(condition)) {
final ConditionNotSatisfiedError conditionNotSatisfiedError = new ConditionNotSatisfiedError(
new Condition(getValues(recorder), text, TextPosition.create(line, column), messageToString(message), null, null));
errorCollector.collectOrThrow(conditionNotSatisfiedError);
}
}
You can't avoid explicit assert in JUnit tests. You can hide them in some helper method, but you still need to call them. Keep in mind, that JUnit runner requires that the test method returns void, so you can't capture the result of a test method. (Replace void with def, and you will see that JUnit does not run your test.)
If you want to explore the world of compile-time metaprogramming in Groovy, you could experiment with writing your own AST transformations. Maybe there is a way to find boolean expression(s) and inject assert in front of it, but I can't guarantee you that it will work. If you look for an out-of-the-box solution for implicit asserts in Groovy JUnit tests, there is no such one.
What if I have classes that are different only by some constant used in code. Is it possible to have one generic implementation without runtime cost?
Here is the example (it's a little bit too long...)
#:enum abstract Param(Int) {
var foo = 0;
var bar = 1;
}
class WorkBase {
public function new() {}
private inline function work_impl(p: Param): Void {
if(p == foo) {
trace('foo');
}
else {
trace('bar');
}
}
public function work(): Void {
}
}
class WorkFoo extends WorkBase{
override public function work(): Void {
work_impl(foo);
}
}
class WorkBar extends WorkBase {
override public function work(): Void {
work_impl(bar);
}
}
class Test {
public static function main() {
var workFoo = new WorkFoo();
var workBar = new WorkBar();
workFoo.work();
workBar.work();
}
}
After compilation with -D analyzer-optimize we will see that WorkFoo.work() and WorkBar.work() functions were optimized and contain only one branch of code that matches one of the Param values. In real life there are lot of such comparisons in work_impl(), and they all are optimized out. That's good.
But what if I do not want to create WorkFoo and WorkBar by hand. Is it possible to do something like this:
#:generic
class WorkBase<PARAM> {
private inline function work_impl(p: Param): Void {
...
}
public function work(): Void {
work_impl(PARAM);
}
}
The closest thing I know is const-type-parameter. But I do not feel generic build is a good choice here.
The closest thing I know is const-type-parameter. But I do not feel generic build is a good choice here.
Const type parameters can be used without #:genericBuild - a const type parameter in combination with #:generic is enough to get the desired optimization:
#:enum abstract Param(Int) from Int {
var foo = 0;
var bar = 1;
}
#:generic class Work<#:const PARAM:Int> {
public function new() {}
public function work():Void {
if (PARAM == foo) {
trace('foo');
} else {
trace('bar');
}
}
}
class Main {
public static function main() {
var workFoo = new Work<0>();
var workBar = new Work<1>();
workFoo.work();
workBar.work();
}
}
Due to #:generic, one class is generated for each constant value, for instance on JS the output looks like this:
var Work_$0 = function() {
};
Work_$0.prototype = {
work: function() {
console.log("source/Main.hx:11:","foo");
}
};
var Work_$1 = function() {
};
Work_$1.prototype = {
work: function() {
console.log("source/Main.hx:13:","bar");
}
};
Note that this example fails with a "constraint check failure" in Haxe 3.4.7 for some reason, but works fine with Haxe 4 preview 4 and later. Another limitation is that neither new Work<Param.foo>() nor new Work<foo>() work - you need to pass the actual constant value.
when I run test with mockery on laravel, this error message:
Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method findOrFail(1) from Mockery_0__Customer should be called exactly 1 times but called 0 times
TestCase
public function createApplication()
{
$app = require __DIR__.'/../bootstrap/app.php';
$app->make(Kernel::class)->bootstrap();
return $app;
}
protected function seeJsonValidFailedResponse()
{
print_r($this->response->getContent());
$this->assertEquals(400, $this->response->status());
return $this;
}
protected function seeJsonValidResponse()
{
print_r($this->response->getContent());
$this->assertEquals(200, $this->response->status());
return $this;
}
public function setUp()
{
parent::setUp();
}
public function tearDown()
{
parent::tearDown();
}
CustomerTest
use Mockery;
class CustomerTest extends TestCase
{
use WithoutMiddleware;
public function testIndexSuccess()
{
$idCustomer= 1;
$mockCustomer = Mockery::mock('Customer');
$mockCustomer
->shouldReceive('findOrFail')
->once()
->with($idCustomer)
->andReturn(true);
$this->app->instance('Customer', $mockCustomer);
$this->get('/customer/history/' . $idCustomer)
->seeJsonValidResponse();
}
}
Controller
use App\Customer;
class CustomerController extends Controller
{
public function __construct(Customer $customer) {
$this->customerModel = $customer;
}
public function history($id)
{
$customer = $this->customerModel->findOrFail($id);
$issues = $customer->issues();
return view('customer/history', compact('customer', 'issues'));
}
}
You should add the whole namespace for the Customer class when defining the mock. So change this line:
$mockCustomer = Mockery::mock('Customer');
to this:
$mockCustomer = Mockery::mock('App\Customer');
I have a problem with calling an overriden method from java class.
I have the following Java class:
public class Base
{
int state = 0;
public void called()
{
System.out.println("Hello, from called method: " + state);
}
public String getFirst()
{
return "From Base;
}
//
...
//
}
I use a groovy script to override getFirst() that so that it calls called()
def base = [ getFirst : {
called() // this line has an error
"From Second"
}] as Base
base.getFirst()
How do I implement the this?
You can't use the proxy magic in that way... At the time of the Maps declaration, it doesn't know it's going to be a Proxy for Base, so it will throw the error
Why not just do it the normal way?
def base = new Base() {
public String getFirst() {
called()
"from me"
}
}
Given a EF-Code First CTP5 entity layout like:
public class Person { ... }
which has a collection of:
public class Address { ... }
which has a single association of:
public class Mailbox { ... }
I want to do:
PersonQuery.Include(x => x.Addresses).Include("Addresses.Mailbox")
WITHOUT using a magic string. I want to do it using a lambda expression.
I am aware what I typed above will compile and will bring back all Persons matching the search criteria with their addresses and each addresses' mailbox eager loaded, but it's in a string which irritates me.
How do I do it without a string?
Thanks Stack!
For that you can use the Select method:
PersonQuery.Include(x => x.Addresses.Select(a => a.Mailbox));
You can find other examples in here and here.
For any one thats still looking for a solution to this, the Lambda includes is part of EF 4+ and it is in the System.Data.Entity namespace; examples here
http://romiller.com/2010/07/14/ef-ctp4-tips-tricks-include-with-lambda/
It is described in this post: http://www.thomaslevesque.com/2010/10/03/entity-framework-using-include-with-lambda-expressions/
Edit (By Asker for readability):
The part you are looking for is below:
public static class ObjectQueryExtensions
{
public static ObjectQuery<T> Include<T>(this ObjectQuery<T> query, Expression<Func<T, object>> selector)
{
string path = new PropertyPathVisitor().GetPropertyPath(selector);
return query.Include(path);
}
class PropertyPathVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
private Stack<string> _stack;
public string GetPropertyPath(Expression expression)
{
_stack = new Stack<string>();
Visit(expression);
return _stack
.Aggregate(
new StringBuilder(),
(sb, name) =>
(sb.Length > 0 ? sb.Append(".") : sb).Append(name))
.ToString();
}
protected override Expression VisitMember(MemberExpression expression)
{
if (_stack != null)
_stack.Push(expression.Member.Name);
return base.VisitMember(expression);
}
protected override Expression VisitMethodCall(MethodCallExpression expression)
{
if (IsLinqOperator(expression.Method))
{
for (int i = 1; i < expression.Arguments.Count; i++)
{
Visit(expression.Arguments[i]);
}
Visit(expression.Arguments[0]);
return expression;
}
return base.VisitMethodCall(expression);
}
private static bool IsLinqOperator(MethodInfo method)
{
if (method.DeclaringType != typeof(Queryable) && method.DeclaringType != typeof(Enumerable))
return false;
return Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(method, typeof(ExtensionAttribute)) != null;
}
}
}