Could haxe macro be used to detect when object is dirty (any property has been changed) - haxe

Question

Let say we have an object:
#:checkDirty
class Test {
var a:Int;
var b(default, default):String;
var c(get, set):Array<Int>;
public function new() {
...
}
public function get_c() {
...
}
public function set_c(n) {
...
}
}
Could we write a macro checkDirty so that any change to field/properties would set property dirty to true. Macro would generate dirty field as Bool and clearDirty function to set it to false.
var test = new Test();
trace(test.dirty); // false
test.a = 12;
trace(test.dirty); // true
test.clearDirty();
trace(test.dirty); //false
test.b = "test"
trace(test.dirty); //true
test.clearDirty();
test.c = [1,2,3];
trace(test.dirty); //true

Answer 1

Just to note - whenever you consider proxying access to an object, in my experience, there are always hidden costs / added complexity. :)
That said, you have a few approaches:
First, if you want it to be pure Haxe, then either a macro or an abstract can get the job done. Either way, you're effectively transforming every property access into a function call that sets the value and also sets dirty.
For example, an abstract using the #:resolve getter and setter can be found in the NME source code, replicated here for convenience:
#:forward(decode,toString)
abstract URLVariables(URLVariablesBase)
{
public function new(?inEncoded:String)
{
this = new URLVariablesBase(inEncoded);
}
#:resolve
public function set(name:String, value:String) : String
{
return this.set(name,value);
}
#:resolve
public function get(name:String):String
{
return this.get(name);
}
}
This may be an older syntax, I'm not sure... also look at the operator overloading examples on the Haxe manual:
#:op(a.b) public function fieldRead(name:String)
return this.indexOf(name);
#:op(a.b) public function fieldWrite(name:String, value:String)
return this.split(name).join(value);
Second, I'd just point out that if the underlying language / runtime supports some kind of Proxy object (e.g. JavaScript Proxy), and macro / abstract isn't working as expected, then you could build your functionality on top of that.

Answer 2

I wrote a post (archive) about doing this kind of thing (except for emitting events) before - you can use a #:build macro to modify class members, be it appending an extra assignment into setter or replacing the field with a property.
So a modified version might look like so:
class Macro {
public static macro function build():Array<Field> {
var fields = Context.getBuildFields();
for (field in fields.copy()) { // (copy fields so that we don't go over freshly added ones)
switch (field.kind) {
case FVar(fieldType, fieldExpr), FProp("default", "default", fieldType, fieldExpr):
var fieldName = field.name;
if (fieldName == "dirty") continue;
var setterName = "set_" + fieldName;
var tmp_class = macro class {
public var $fieldName(default, set):$fieldType = $fieldExpr;
public function $setterName(v:$fieldType):$fieldType {
$i{fieldName} = v;
this.dirty = true;
return v;
}
};
for (mcf in tmp_class.fields) fields.push(mcf);
fields.remove(field);
case FProp(_, "set", t, e):
var setter = Lambda.find(fields, (f) -> f.name == "set_" + field.name);
if (setter == null) continue;
switch (setter.kind) {
case FFun(f):
f.expr = macro { dirty = true; ${f.expr}; };
default:
}
default:
}
}
if (Lambda.find(fields, (f) -> f.name == "dirty") == null) fields.push((macro class {
public var dirty:Bool = false;
}).fields[0]);
return fields;
}
}
which, if used as
#:build(Macro.build())
#:keep class Some {
public function new() {}
public var one:Int;
public var two(default, set):String;
function set_two(v:String):String {
two = v;
return v;
}
}
Would emit the following JS:
var Some = function() {
this.dirty = false;
};
Some.prototype = {
set_two: function(v) {
this.dirty = true;
this.two = v;
return v;
}
,set_one: function(v) {
this.one = v;
this.dirty = true;
return v;
}
};