Currently i'm working on an android studio project.i need a function which returns number of days between today and my next birthday.
i.e,
long daysForBirthday(dob){
.....
.....
return days;
}
I will use the return value to make notifications.
If today is 23/05/2020 and my birth date is 28/05/1999 the function should remain 5.
I'm very noob in android studio so please forgive my mistakes. Thank you :)
java.time and ThreeTenABP
My suggestion is using java.time, the modern Java date and time API:
public static int daysRemain(LocalDate dob){
LocalDate today = LocalDate.now(ZoneId.of("Asia/Kolkata"));
long age = ChronoUnit.YEARS.between(dob, today);
LocalDate nextBirthday = dob.plusYears(age);
if (nextBirthday.isBefore(today)) {
nextBirthday = dob.plusYears(age + 1);
}
long daysUntilNextBirthday = ChronoUnit.DAYS.between(today, nextBirthday);
return Math.toIntExact(daysUntilNextBirthday);
}
Let’s try it out:
System.out.println(daysRemain(LocalDate.of(1999, Month.MAY, 28)));
When I ran this call today (25th May in India), the output was:
3
Question: Doesn’t java.time require Android API level 26?
java.time works nicely on both older and newer Android devices. It just requires at least Java 6.
In Java 8 and later and on newer Android devices (from API level 26) the modern API comes built-in.
In non-Android Java 6 and 7 get the ThreeTen Backport, the backport of the modern classes (ThreeTen for JSR 310; see the links at the bottom).
On (older) Android use the Android edition of ThreeTen Backport. It’s called ThreeTenABP. And make sure you import the date and time classes from org.threeten.bp with subpackages.
Links
Oracle tutorial: Date Time explaining how to use java.time.
Java Specification Request (JSR) 310, where java.time was first described.
ThreeTen Backport project, the backport of java.time to Java 6 and 7 (ThreeTen for JSR-310).
ThreeTenABP, Android edition of ThreeTen Backport
Question: How to use ThreeTenABP in Android Project, with a very thorough explanation.
I think i found an answer. please let me know if there is a problem.
long daysForBirthday(String dob){
SimpleDateFormat format = new SimpleDateFormat("dd/MM/yyyy", Locale.getDefault());
String dateOB=dob.split("/")[0]+"/"+dob.split("/")[1]+"/"+Calendar.getInstance().get(Calendar.YEAR);
if((Calendar.getInstance().get(Calendar.YEAR)%4!=0)&&(Integer.parseInt(dob.split("/")[0])==29)&&(Integer.parseInt(dob.split("/")[1])==2)){
dateOB="01/03/"+Calendar.getInstance().get(Calendar.YEAR);
}
try {
Date bday=format.parse(dateOB);
Date today=Calendar.getInstance().getTime();
assert bday!=null;
if(bday.before(today)){
Calendar c=Calendar.getInstance();
c.setTime(bday);
c.add(Calendar.YEAR,1);
bday=new Date(c.getTimeInMillis());
}
return TimeUnit.DAYS.convert(bday.getTime()-today.getTime(),TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (ParseException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return -1;
}
}
Related
Main context
We're actually trying to get a multi-threading version of Ghostscript x64 DLL, to make use of it through Ghostscript .NET. This component is supposed to "allow runing multiple Ghostscript instances simultaneously within a single process", but, as we have checked in our project, works fine until concurrent requests are made to the application. Same behavior can be replicated lauching same method using Tasks. The error description that raises in both cases, just when a call to the process is made until the last is being executed, is:
An error occured when call to 'gsapi_new_instance' is made: -100
Even it does no seem to be related with .NET directly, I will post a sample of our C# method code, just for contextualize.
// Define switches...
string[] switchesArray = switches.ToArray();
using (GhostscriptProcessor procesador = new GhostscriptProcessor())
{
try
{
procesador.StartProcessing(switchesArray, null);
byte[] destinationFile = System.IO.File.ReadAllBytes(destinationPath);
return destinationFile;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
finally
{
System.IO.File.Delete(sourceFile);
}
}
THREADSAFE solution
Starting our investigation, we found this KenS's answer on this post, indicating that Ghostscript DLL must be generated with GS_THREADSAFE compiler definition.
To clarify, as we make use of Ghostscript 9.52 x64 to generate our PDFs, we need this x64 DLL compiled for Release configuration. After trying to compile Ghostscript sources on Windows 10 x64 machine, using Visual Studio Community 2017 and Visual Studio Community 2019, we finally managed to build and generate all items (only with VS Community 2019) without GS_THREADSAFE parameter, just to confirm that compilation is fine, and we check that the DLLs and executables are working. For this process we took in mind all we found in Ghostscript official documentation.
As we have no other guide to include this GS_THREADSAFE parameter, we followed the instructions given in this solution, including XCFLAGS="-DGS_THREADSAFE=1" on nmake build commands, usign this sentence for Rebuild all option:
cd .. && nmake -f psi\msvc32.mak WIN64= SBR=1 DEVSTUDIO= XCFLAGS=-DGS_THREADSAFE=1 && nmake -f psi\msvc32.mak WIN64= DEVSTUDIO= XCFLAGS=-DGS_THREADSAFE=1 bsc
This approach, rises an error during build:
Error LNK2019 unresolved external symbol errprintf_nomem referenced in
function gs_log_error File \mkromfs.obj 1
As it seems, the file mkromfs.c has a method called errprintf_nomem, which can't be found when GS_THREADSAFE is set.
Questions
1 - Is there any public release of Ghostscript that include x64 DLLs compiled to be THREADSAFE?
And, if not (that's what I'm guessing...)
2 - Is it possible to get this DLL to be THREADSAFE without changing the source code?
3- Could anyone provide, please, a step by step guide or walkthrough to build a x64 Ghostscript DLL using GS_THREADSAFE using Visual Studio (or even any other possible alternative) over Windows 10 x64?
4 - A few posts talk about people achive to manage multithreading using Ghostscript .NET. I assume this examples are all using a GS_THREADSAFE DLL... Is any other workaround we have passed?
Thank a lot in advance.
To summarize all this questions, and as a guide for future developers having this same trouble, these are the answers we've found until now:
AS #KenS mentions in his reply: "No, the Ghostscript developers don't actually build thread-safe versions of the binaries."
At this very moment, clearly not, as it has been reported on this opened bug.
As it seems to be a matter of commercial licensing support, we avoid comment on this point anymore.
Thanks again to #HABJAN. I absolutely take back what I've stated on my question, as it is possible to have Ghostscript .NET working on multi-threading scenarios. Below comes the solution we applied, in case it could be useful for someone.
Based on HABJAN example, what we have done to achieve this was to create a custom class to capture Ghostscript logging:
protected class ConsoleStdIO : Ghostscript.NET.GhostscriptStdIO
{
public ConsoleStdIO(bool handleStdIn, bool handleStdOut, bool handleStdErr) : base(handleStdIn, handleStdOut, handleStdErr)
{
}
public override void StdIn(out string input, int count)
{
char[] userInput = new char[count];
Console.In.ReadBlock(userInput, 0, count);
input = new string(userInput);
}
public override void StdOut(string output)
{
//log
}
public override void StdError(string error)
{
//log
}
}
For our previous method, we simple include a call to this class and this avoids errors when multiple tasks are executed at the same time:
// Define switches...
string[] switchesArray = switches.ToArray();
using (GhostscriptProcessor procesador = new GhostscriptProcessor())
{
try
{
procesador.StartProcessing(switchesArray, new ConsoleStdIO(true, true, true));
byte[] destinationFile = System.IO.File.ReadAllBytes(destinationPath);
return destinationFile;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
finally
{
System.IO.File.Delete(sourceFile);
}
}
Well, it seems to me that you are asking here for technical support.
You clearly want to use Ghostscript in a commercial undertaking, indeed one might reasonably say you want an enterprise version of Ghostscript. Presumably you don't want to alter the source in order to permit you to use an open source license, because you don't want to pay for a commercial license.
With that in mind the answers to your questions are:
No, the Ghostscript developers don't actually build thread-safe versions of the binaries.
Currently, no. That's probably an oversight.
That would be a technical support question, there's no guarantee of technical support to free users, it's the one of the few areas of leverage for dual license vendors to persuade people to take up a commercial license. So I hope you will understand that I'm not going to provide that.
as far as I can see, no.
Ok, I have some fictional class
public class TEMP {
String data;
View.OnClickListener onClickListener = new View.OnClickListener() {
#Override
public void onClick(View v) {
if (data != null) {
}
}
};
}
And it looks like this in Android Studio:
If I collapse all - it looks ugly:
If I remove that if block inside onClick() - it looks good:
Why is this happening and how can I solve this issue?
It's been a while, so I'm not sure how helpful this is.
This is folding the function into a lambda-like visual structure with Java 8 lambda-notation. Single method interfaces are (almost) equivalent to lambdas in Java 8. Android Studio currently does NOT support Java 8 lambda notation (details found at the bottom of this answer: Is it possible to use Java 8 for Android development?).
A workaround IS available for Java 8, based on the Jack toolchain. Here is the the workaround, and here is the deprecation of the Jack toolchain.
Another note is that according to here and here, Android Studio 2.4 preview 4 and later appears to support actual lambda notation. Note that these are previews, and the latest official version is 2.3.2.
As for how to fix it, I don't believe it is possible. You may be able to use the region feature to duplicate what you are trying to achieve. The link above is a how-to sort of thing.
When running unitTest on AndroidStudio (1.4), my below test fail as per title i.e. java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat(Ljava/util/Map;)Lorg/assertj/core/api/MapAssert;
#Test
public void mapTest() {
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("Key1", "Value1");
map.put("Key2", "Value2");
Assertions.assertThat(map).isNotNull();
}
When I run it from command line using gradlew command, it passed. I'm already pointing my Java to jdk1.8.0_66.jdk. Anyone knows why?
(p/s: I get the latest AndroidStudio 2.0 Preview 5, my test fails massively. So I decided to stay with the older version of Android Studio).
Trying to search for help and found this link https://github.com/joel-costigliola/assertj-core/issues/395. Apparently he also face the same issue on IDE. Any clue what's the cause?
I would double check the classpath.
Use assertj core 1.7.1 - it's a version depending on java 6 whcih I'm sure is Android compatible.
Hope it helps
So I updated my Xamarin install today to the latest stable version. Since the update, my app won't run on iOS (runs fine on Android)... the error is that it can't resolve the constructor.
Autofac.Core.DependencyResolutionException: No constructors on type 'FutureState.AppCore.Migrations.Migration001' can be found with the constructor finder 'Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.DefaultConstructorFinder'.
My original constructor is
public Migration001(IUserRepository userRepository,
IRoleRepository roleRepository,
IPermissionRepository permissionRepository,
IPasswordHasher passwordHasher)
{
_userRepository = userRepository;
_roleRepository = roleRepository;
_permissionRepository = permissionRepository;
_passwordHasher = passwordHasher;
MigrationVersion = 1;
}
but I even tried changing it to service location just to see if Autofac would find the constructor.
public Migration001()
{
_userRepository = App.Container.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
_roleRepository = App.Container.Resolve<IRoleRepository>();
_permissionRepository = App.Container.Resolve<IPermissionRepository>();
_passwordHasher = App.Container.Resolve<IPasswordHasher>();
MigrationVersion = 1;
}
but unfortunately, it results in the exact same issue.
Autofac.Core.DependencyResolutionException: No constructors on type 'FutureState.AppCore.Migrations.Migration001' can be found with the constructor finder 'Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.DefaultConstructorFinder'.
what would cause something like this? This is a Xamarin.Forms app, so the exact same code is run without issue on Android.
Looks like it was an issue with the Xamarian release at that time. I've re-updated to the latest version (yesterday) and no longer have this issue.
Further there were a number of breaking bugs in the September 2014 releases, so if you're on 3.5... upgrade.
I had similar issue after upgrading Xamarin iOS SDK to Alpha (3.9.289). Changing Linker Behaviour to 'Don't link' solved my problem.
Changing Linker Behaviour to Link Framework SDKs Only solved my problem.
I am working on VS 2013 in Win 8.1.
How to solve this warning?
The basic question is "why are you calling GetVersionExW in the first place?" The answer to that question determines what you should do instead.
The deprecation warning is there to give developers a heads-up about the appcompat behavior change that started in Windows 8.1. See Windows and Windows Server compatibility cookbook: Windows 8, Windows 8.1, and Windows Server 2012. In short, that function doesn't return what you think it returns by default.
Historically, badly written OS version checks are the primary source of appcompat bugs for Windows OS upgrades. There've been a number of different approaches to trying to mitigate this problem (the AppVerifier version lie, the VerifyVersionInfo API, etc.), and this is the most aggressive to date.
The VersionHelpers.h mentioned in the comments are in the Windows 8.1 SDK that comes with Visual Studio 2013. They are not a new API; they are just utility code that makes use of the VerifyVersionInfo API introduced back in Windows 2000. These functions are for doing "You must be this high to ride this ride" style checks which are the class of version checks that are most often badly written. The code is pretty simple. For example, the IsWindowsVistaSP2OrGreater test is:
VERSIONHELPERAPI
IsWindowsVersionOrGreater(WORD wMajorVersion, WORD wMinorVersion, WORD wServicePackMajor)
{
OSVERSIONINFOEXW osvi = {};
osvi.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(osvi);
DWORDLONG const dwlConditionMask = VerSetConditionMask(
VerSetConditionMask(
VerSetConditionMask(
0, VER_MAJORVERSION, VER_GREATER_EQUAL),
VER_MINORVERSION, VER_GREATER_EQUAL),
VER_SERVICEPACKMAJOR, VER_GREATER_EQUAL);
osvi.dwMajorVersion = wMajorVersion;
osvi.dwMinorVersion = wMinorVersion;
osvi.wServicePackMajor = wServicePackMajor;
return VerifyVersionInfoW(&osvi, VER_MAJORVERSION | VER_MINORVERSION | VER_SERVICEPACKMAJOR, dwlConditionMask) != FALSE;
}
VERSIONHELPERAPI
IsWindowsVistaSP2OrGreater()
{
return IsWindowsVersionOrGreater(HIBYTE(_WIN32_WINNT_VISTA), LOBYTE(_WIN32_WINNT_VISTA), 2);
}
You don't need to use VersionHelpers.h as you could just do this kind of code yourself, but they are convenient if you are already using the VS 2013 compiler. For games, I have an article What's in a version number? which uses VerifyVersionInfo to do the kind of reasonable checks one should for game deployment.
Note if you are using VS 2013 with the v120_xp platform toolset to target Windows XP, you'll actually be using the Windows 7.1A SDK and #include <VersionHelpers.h> won't work. You can of course use VerifyVersionInfo directly.
The other major use of GetVersionExW is diagnostic logs and telemetry. In this case, one option is to continue to use that API and make sure you have the right manifest entries in your application to ensure reasonably accurate results. See Manifest Madness for details on what you do here to achieve this. The main thing to keep in mind is that unless you routinely update your code, you will eventually stop getting fully accurate information in a future version of the OS.
Note that it is recommended you put the <compatibility> section in an embedded manifest whether or not you care about the results of GetVersionEx as general best practice. This allows the OS to automatically apply future appcompat fixes based on knowing how the app was originally tested.
For diagnostic logs, another approach that might be a bit more robust is to grab the version number out of a system DLL like kernel32.dll using GetFileVersionInfoW. This approach has a major caveat: Do not try parsing, doing comparisons, or making code assumptions based on the file version you obtain this way; just write it out somewhere. Otherwise you risk recreating the same bad OS version check problem that is better solved with VerifyVersionInfo. This option is not available to Windows Store apps, Windows phone apps, etc. but should work for Win32 desktop apps.
#include <Windows.h>
#include <cstdint>
#include <memory>
#pragma comment(lib, "version.lib" )
bool GetOSVersionString( WCHAR* version, size_t maxlen )
{
WCHAR path[ _MAX_PATH ] = {};
if ( !GetSystemDirectoryW( path, _MAX_PATH ) )
return false;
wcscat_s( path, L"\\kernel32.dll" );
//
// Based on example code from this article
// http://support.microsoft.com/kb/167597
//
DWORD handle;
#if (_WIN32_WINNT >= _WIN32_WINNT_VISTA)
DWORD len = GetFileVersionInfoSizeExW( FILE_VER_GET_NEUTRAL, path, &handle );
#else
DWORD len = GetFileVersionInfoSizeW( path, &handle );
#endif
if ( !len )
return false;
std::unique_ptr<uint8_t> buff( new (std::nothrow) uint8_t[ len ] );
if ( !buff )
return false;
#if (_WIN32_WINNT >= _WIN32_WINNT_VISTA)
if ( !GetFileVersionInfoExW( FILE_VER_GET_NEUTRAL, path, 0, len, buff.get() ) )
#else
if ( !GetFileVersionInfoW( path, 0, len, buff.get() ) )
#endif
return false;
VS_FIXEDFILEINFO *vInfo = nullptr;
UINT infoSize;
if ( !VerQueryValueW( buff.get(), L"\\", reinterpret_cast<LPVOID*>( &vInfo ), &infoSize ) )
return false;
if ( !infoSize )
return false;
swprintf_s( version, maxlen, L"%u.%u.%u.%u",
HIWORD( vInfo->dwFileVersionMS ),
LOWORD(vInfo->dwFileVersionMS),
HIWORD(vInfo->dwFileVersionLS),
LOWORD(vInfo->dwFileVersionLS) );
return true;
}
If there is some other reason you are calling GetVersionExW, you probably shouldn't be calling it. Checking for a component that might be missing shouldn't be tied to a version check. For example, if your application requires Media Foundation, you should set a "You must be this high to ride this ride check" like the VersionHelpers.h IsWindowsVistaOrGreater for deployment, but at runtime you should use explicit linking via LoadLibrary or LoadLibaryEx to report an error or use a fallback if MFPLAT.DLL is not found.
Explicit linking is not an option for Windows Store apps. Windows 8.x solves this
particular problem by having a stub MFPLAT.DLL and MFStartUp will return E_NOTIMPL.
See "Who moved my [Windows Media] Cheese"?
Another example: if your application wants to use Direct3D 11.2 if it is available and otherwise uses DirectX 11.0, you'd use set a IsWindowsVistaSP2OrGreater minimum bar for deployment perhaps using the D3D11InstallHelper. Then at runtime, you'd create the DirectX 11.0 device and if it fails, you'd report an error. If you obtain a ID3D11Device, then you'd QueryInterface for a ID3D11Device2 which if it succeeds means you are using an OS that supports DirectX 11.2. See Anatomy of Direct3D 11 Create Device.
If this hypothetical Direct3D application supports Windows XP, you'd use a deployment bar of IsWindowsXPSP2OrGreater or IsWindowsXPSP3OrGreater, and then at run time use explicit linking to try to find the D3D11.DLL. If it wasn't present, you'd fall back to using Direct3D 9--since we set the minimum bar, we know that DirectX 9.0c or later is always present.
They key point here is that in most cases, you should not use GetVersionEx.
Note that with Windows 10, VerifyVersionInfo and getting the file version stamp via GetFileVersionInfo for kernel32.lib are now subject to the same manifest based behavior as GetVersionEx (i.e. without the manifest GUID for Windows 10, it returns results as if the OS version were 6.2 rather than 10.0).
For universal Windows apps on Windows 10, you can a new WinRT API AnalyticsInfo to get a version stamp string for diagnostic logs and telemetry.
you can disable this warning and use GetVersionEx anyway by adding:
#pragma warning(disable : 4996)
While GetVersionEx was declared deprecated, if you toss in a proper compatibility manifest declaring compatibility with Windows 8.1 and Windows 10, GetVersionEx will return the correct version number. I use GetVersionEx to detect Windows 8 or greater, and because Windows 8 is the last version of Windows to not require a manifest to return the proper Windows version, my code works fine regardless of whether the API returns Windows 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 (for early Windows 10 previews), or 10.0.
With all that said, Microsoft deprecated this API in part due to bad usage of it. Take for instance this attempt to detect Windows XP or greater:
BOOL IsXPOrGreater;
OSVERSIONINFO osver;
osver.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFO);
GetVersionEx(&osver);
if((osver.dwMajorVersion >= 5) && (osver.dwMinorVersion >=1) IsXPOrGreater = TRUE;
else IsXPOrGreater = FALSE;
This sample would return TRUE on Windows XP, Server 2003, 7, 8, and 8.1 but would return FALSE on Windows Vista or 10. Adding one line would fix this:
BOOL IsXPOrGreater;
OSVERSIONINFO osver;
osver.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFO);
GetVersionEx(&osver);
if((osver.dwMajorVersion >= 5) && (osver.dwMinorVersion >=1) IsXPOrGreater = TRUE;
else if(osver.dwMajorVersion >= 6) IsXPOrGreater = TRUE;
else IsXPOrGreater = FALSE;
This sample would function correctly because it knows that if the major version is 6 or greater than it is greater than XP.
if you look at sysinfoapi.h you will find the following
NOT_BUILD_WINDOWS_DEPRECATE
WINBASEAPI
__drv_preferredFunction("IsWindows*", "Deprecated. Use VerifyVersionInfo* or IsWindows* macros from VersionHelpers.")
BOOL
WINAPI
GetVersionExW(
_Inout_ LPOSVERSIONINFOW lpVersionInformation
);
#ifdef UNICODE
#define GetVersionEx GetVersionExW
#else
#define GetVersionEx GetVersionExA
#endif // !UNICODE
if you track the NOT_BUILD_WINDOWS_DEPRECATE in the same header file you will find
#if defined(FKG_FORCED_USAGE) || defined(WINPHONE) || defined(BUILD_WINDOWS)
# define NOT_BUILD_WINDOWS_DEPRECATE
#else
# define NOT_BUILD_WINDOWS_DEPRECATE __declspec(deprecated)
#endif
the above code mean in simple words if you define one of the following
BUILD_WINDOWS or WINPHONE or FKG_FORCED_USAGE it will not show the deprecated error
so in your code you could do thing like this :
#define BUILD_WINDOWS before #include <windows.h>
and that should solve it for you.