We have haxe.ds.ReadOnlyArray, but it blocks push/pop for everyone. What I need is to be able to change it within a class, but not outside of it. Is it possible? When I do public var myArr(default, null):Array<Something> - it won't let other classes replace the array itself, but they can push/pop, so it's not a solution, too. Thanks!
You can expose it as a read-only array to the outside by using a read-only property that has a different name:
var internalArray:Array<T>;
public var publicArray(get, never):haxe.ds.ReadOnlyArray<T>;
function get_publicArray() return internalArray;
Related
So my problem is I have models that is separated by one of our domain's types, and it has a lot of types which each one of em has a dedicated collection. As I know, we can inject the model in the service constructor like this way:
#InjectModel(ModelName.Job) private readonly jobModel: JobModel,
It is a bit messy to me to inject all of those collections in the constructor, and also they are not useful at the same time. So I wonder if I could load mongoose model dynamically inside the service's method using the our domain type as the key, more or less same as the module reference like this:
private getModelReference(reference: any) {
return this.moduleReference.get(ModelName[reference]);
}
But, any other workarounds to load the model dynamically on the fly are appreciated.
It is technically possible to do. Using your code above you can do
private getModelReference(reference: any) {
return this.moduleReference.get(getModelToken(ModelName[reference]));
}
Assuming that ModelName[reference] refers back to a mongoose model name (i.e. Cat.name or just 'Cat')
I've got a rendering engine, much like React where I need to store classes rather than instances in an object for compiling.
So for example, I have a Button component that I would like to be able to dynamically instantiate. Doing this would be as easy as
new components["Button"]
For this, I need a list of all possible classes. So I've got a Dictionary interface declared like so:
interface Dictionary<T> {
[Key: string]: T;
}
This works well, I'm easily able to add objects to this dictionary. Except if I have an object:
const components: Dictionary<Component> = {
Button: Button
}
Then I get an error because Button is a class, rather than an instance. Here, the issue is, I don't want to define the dictionary as Dictionary<Function> because that would mean I allow any function into the dictionary. Specifically, I only want to allow classes into the dictionary that extend the Component class.
How would I achieve this?
You also need to define the signature of the constructor (which makes sense if you think about it), but you do the following:
interface ComponentClass {
new (a: number): Component;
}
(The signature of the constructor is probably not "number", but put in whatever it is.)
I started working with CodedUI few months before to automate a desktop Application(WPF).
Just checking out for the best ways to create a framework for my Application.
As, I have seen in other automation tools, I feel the heart of an automation framework using any tool(UI Based) is the way it's object Repository is created i.e. how well the UI objects are defined. A Cleaner and well defined Object Repository always proves to be very helpful when it comes to updating your tests.
I am trying to discover the best way to store my UIObjects so that in case of any UI changes in my Application, I have to put minimum effort to update my automation test.
Also, If an Object changes in application, updating it only at one place should solve the problem.
This can be any kind of change like :
->change in just a property(This I feel would be very easy to update in automation Test. The best and Easiet way I feel is to simply update the .uitest file(the xml file) if possible.)
->change in hierarchy and position
->entirely new object added
For the 2nd and 3rd changes, updating scripts become a difficult job, esp if the UIObject is being referred at may places, in many TestMethods, or Modules.
Also, I have generally seen that in Test Methods, Variable Declarations are done to create a reference to the UIMap objects and those variables are further used in the TestMethod Code.
So, in this case If the UI of my application changes, I will have to update the variable decalaration in each of the Test Methods. I want to reduce this effort to changing the variable decalaration only at one place. OfCourse, I cannot have all the code inside only one Test Method. One way that came to my mind is as:
Can't I have simply one common place for all these Variable decalarations. We can give a unique and understandable name to each UIObject e.g.: The decalratoions will look like:
UITabPage UITabPage = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage;
WpfRow UIRow = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow;
WpfText UIEquipmentTagText = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UITagCell.UIEquipmentTagText;
WpfCheckBox UIEquipmentCheckBox = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UICheckBoxCell.UICheckBox;
....
....
and use these variables wherever required. Hence, In case of any chnages also, there will be only one place where you will need to update thse objects.
But for this, These varaibles must be made STATIC. What can be problem with making these Object Variables static?
Please provide your suggestion on this topic. May be what I am thinking is not possible or practical. I just want to choose the best way to start with before I go too far with the automation scripts and realize later that my approach wasn't a good one.
Thanks in Advance,
Shruti
Look into using descriptive programming instead of using the UIMaps.
Make a static class with generic functions to assist. Going to give you some examples of how to set it up.
For example:
public WinWindow parentwin(string ParentControlName)
{
var parentwin = new WinWindow();
parentwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ParentControlName);
return parentwin;
}
public WinWindow childwin(string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = new WinWindow(parentwin(ParentControlName));
childwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ChildWinControlName);
return childwin;
}
public WinButton button(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = childwin(ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
var button = new WinButton(childwin);
button.SearchProperties.Add("Name", ButtonName);
}
public void ClickButton(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var button = button(ButtonName,ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
Mouse.Click(button);
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocus)
{
var NewFocus = new NewFocus();
NewFocus.SetFocus();
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocusChild, string c)
{
var a = new NewFocus();
a.SetFocus();
}
ChangeFocus(childwin("WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
ClickButton("&OK", "WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
My question is regarding properties in haxe.
If I understand it correctly, if I make property like this
var propertyInt(get, set):Int; according to haxe documentation it's not really a variable. But I can make it a variable by modifying it this way
#:isVar var propertyInt(get, set):Int;. Otherwise I need to make two methods:
function get_propertyInt()
return propertyInt;
function set_properyInt(i)
return propertyInt = i;
So my question is: does it matter if I'm using exclusively #:isVar var propertyInt(get, set):Int; ? For example I have more than 5 properties in my class and as you can imagine making this methods for every property could be huge pain in the rear. So what is the best approach?
Here's what the documentation has to say about physical properties (also known as backing fields):
A field is considered to be physical if it is either
variable
a property with the read-access or write-access identifier being default or null
a property with :isVar metadata
So you can set up a property that fully consists of calculated values. Think a read-only property giving you the area of a rectangle as a function of width and height, or think of a property that is backed by some other property and just returns/sets width and height in a different unit. Or maybe you just want to name your backing fields differently, say m_width and m_height.
The :isVar is helpful in situations where the property access rules etc. laid out above would let the compiler think that there is no backing field needed. In that case, the code would fail (from the docs again):
// This field cannot be accessed because it
// is not a real variable
public var x(get, set):Int;
function get_x() {
return x;
}
function set_x(x) {
return this.x = x;
}
By adding :isVar you basically tell the compiler that you absolutely want the backing field. The other option for your particular case would be to use default,default, in which case the compiler knows there is an automatic backing field required and access should be restricted according to the access level of the property (public or private):
public var propertyInt(default, default):Int;
In that case you might also use a variable directly, because the net effect is in essence the same:
public var propertyInt : Int;
I am trying to save an Object which implements an Interface say IInterface.
private PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface> Object = new PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface>(Environment.CurrentDirectory + #"\Object");
Since many classes implement the same interface(all of which need to cached), for a generic approach I want to store an Object of type IInterface in the dictionary.
So that anywhere I can pull out that object type cast it as IInterface and use that object's internal implementation of methods etc..
But, as soon as the Esent cache is initialized it throws this error:
Not supported for SetColumn
Parameter name: TColumn
Actual value was IInterface.
I have tried to not use XmlSerializer to do the same but is unable to deserialize an Interface type.Also, [Serializable] attribute cannot be used on top of a Interface, so I am stuck.
I have also tried to make all the implementations(classes) of the Interface as [Serializable] as a dying attempt but to no use.
Does any one know a way out ? Thanks in advance !!!
The only reason that only structs are supported (as well as some basic immutable classes such as string) is that the PersistentDictionary is meant to be a drop-in replacement for Dictionary, SortedDictionary and other similar classes.
Suppose I have the following code:
class MyClass
{
int val;
}
.
.
.
var dict = new Dictionary<int,MyClass>();
var x = new MyClass();
x.val = 1;
dict.Add(0,x);
x.val = 2;
var y = dict[0];
Console.WriteLine(y.val);
The output in this case would be 2. But if I'd used the PersistentDictionary instead of the regular one, the output would be 1. The class was created with value 1, and then changed after it was added to the dictionary. Since a class is a reference type, when we retrieve the item from the dictionary, we will also have the changed data.
Since the PersistentDictionary writes the data to disk, it cannot really handle reference types this way. Serializing it, and writing it to disk is essentially the same as treating the object as a value type (an entire copy is made).
Because it's intended to be used instead of the standard dictionaries, and the fact that it cannot handle reference types with complete transparency, the developers instead opted to support only structs, because structs are value types already.
However, if you're aware of this limitation and promise to be careful not to fall into this trap, you can allow it to serialize classes quite easily. Just download the source code and compile your own version of the EsentCollections library. The only change you need to make to it is to change this line:
if (!(type.IsValueType && type.IsSerializable))
to this:
if (!type.IsSerializable)
This will allow classes to be written to the PersistentDictionary as well, provided that it's Serializable, and its members are Serializable as well. A huge benefit is that it will also allow you to store arrays in there this way. All you have to keep in mind is that it's not a real dictionary, therefore when you write an object to it, it will store a copy of the object. Therefore, updating any of your object's members after adding them to the PersistentDictionary will not update the copy in the dictionary automatically as well, you'd need to remember to update it manually.
PersistentDictionary can only store value-structs and a very limited subset of classes (string, Uri, IPAddress). Take a look at ColumnConverter.cs, at private static bool IsSerializable(Type type) for the full restrictions. You'd be hitting the typeinfo.IsValueType() restriction.
By the way, you can also try posting questions about PersistentDictionary at http://managedesent.codeplex.com/discussions .
-martin