I generated a list of strings dynamically.
/
/I declared a list of strings and generated it using the length of my product.
late final List<String> recovered;
//the length of the products is 3
recovered = List.generate(products.length, (index) => ""));
//I assigned the list generated to the onChanged method inside my TextField.
TextField(
onChanged: (value) {
recovered[index] =
value;
log("the value is $value");
setState(() {});
},
}),
I want to get each String generated and assigned to a map dynamically. Like this:
{"product": "Noodles", "recovered": "2"} //recovered is the string from the text field, the product is gotten from the list of products.
I can't use recovered[index] because it returns the string at the first index only. I can't do this recovered[1] because since the string is generated dynamically, I can't get each index.
I figured out a solution that works.
List<Map> mapList = []; //Create a list of map
var myproduct = {}; //a map that will take the product and the recovered.
Then assigned the myproduct to the list of map (mapList) inside the TextField.
TextField(
onChanged: (value) {
recovered[index] =
value;
myproduct = {
"product": products[index]['product'], "quantity_delivered": value
}; mapList.add(myproduct);
}),
In python, I often use strings as templates, e.g.
templateUrl = '{host}/api/v3/{container}/{resourceid}'
params = {'host': 'www.api.com', 'container': 'books', 'resourceid': 10}
api.get(templateUrl.format(**params))
This allows for easy base class setup and the like. How can I do the same in dart?
I'm assuming I will need to create a utility function to parse the template and substitute manually but really hoping there is something ready to use.
Perhaps a TemplateString class with a format method that takes a Map of name/value pairs to substitute into the string.
Note: the objective is to have a generic "format" or "interpolation" function that doesn't need to know in advance what tags or names will exist in the template.
Further clarification: the templates themselves are not resolved when they are set up. Specifically, the template is defined in one place in the code and then used in many other places.
Dart does not have a generic template string functionality that would allow you to insert values into your template at runtime.
Dart only allows you to interpolate strings with variables using the $ syntax in strings, e.g. var string = '$domain/api/v3/${actions.get}'. You would need to have all the variables defined in your code beforehand.
However, you can easily create your own implementation.
Implementation
You pretty much explained how to do it in your question yourself: you pass a map and use it to have generic access to the parameters using the [] operator.
To convert the template string into something that is easy to access, I would simply create another List containing fixed components, like /api/v3/ and another Map that holds generic components with their name and their position in the template string.
class TemplateString {
final List<String> fixedComponents;
final Map<int, String> genericComponents;
int totalComponents;
TemplateString(String template)
: fixedComponents = <String>[],
genericComponents = <int, String>{},
totalComponents = 0 {
final List<String> components = template.split('{');
for (String component in components) {
if (component == '') continue; // If the template starts with "{", skip the first element.
final split = component.split('}');
if (split.length != 1) {
// The condition allows for template strings without parameters.
genericComponents[totalComponents] = split.first;
totalComponents++;
}
if (split.last != '') {
fixedComponents.add(split.last);
totalComponents++;
}
}
}
String format(Map<String, dynamic> params) {
String result = '';
int fixedComponent = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < totalComponents; i++) {
if (genericComponents.containsKey(i)) {
result += '${params[genericComponents[i]]}';
continue;
}
result += fixedComponents[fixedComponent++];
}
return result;
}
}
Here would be an example usage, I hope that the result is what you expected:
main() {
final templateUrl = TemplateString('{host}/api/v3/{container}/{resourceid}');
final params = <String, dynamic>{'host': 'www.api.com', 'container': 'books', 'resourceid': 10};
print(templateUrl.format(params)); // www.api.com/api/v3/books/10
}
Here it is as a Gist.
Here is my solution:
extension StringFormating on String {
String format(List<String> values) {
int index = 0;
return replaceAllMapped(new RegExp(r'{.*?}'), (_) {
final value = values[index];
index++;
return value;
});
}
String formatWithMap(Map<String, String> mappedValues) {
return replaceAllMapped(new RegExp(r'{(.*?)}'), (match) {
final mapped = mappedValues[match[1]];
if (mapped == null)
throw ArgumentError(
'$mappedValues does not contain the key "${match[1]}"');
return mapped;
});
}
}
This gives you a very similar functionality to what python offers:
"Test {} with {}!".format(["it", "foo"]);
"Test {a} with {b}!".formatWithMap({"a": "it", "b": "foo"})
both return "Test it with foo!"
It's even more easy in Dart. Sample code below :
String host = "www.api.com"
String container = "books"
int resourceId = 10
String templateUrl = "$host/api/v3/$container/${resourceId.toString()}"
With the map, you can do as follows :
Map<String, String> params = {'host': 'www.api.com', 'container': 'books', 'resourceid': 10}
String templateUrl = "${params['host']}/api/v3/${params['container']}/${params['resourceId']}"
Note : The above code defines Map as <String, String>. You might want <String, Dynamic> (and use .toString())
Wouldn't it be simplest to just make it a function with named arguments? You could add some input validation if you wanted to.
String templateUrl({String host = "", String container = "", int resourceid = 0 }) {
return "$host/api/v3/$container/$resourceId";
}
void main() {
api.get(templateUrl(host:"www.api.com", container:"books", resourceid:10));
}
I'm serializing an object with YamlDotNet with both reference and value types. What i'm looking to accomplish is that my integer values of zero remain in the outputted yaml, but null values would be discarded. EmitDefaults looks to discard '0' for numeric values. i understand null is the default value for reference types. Json.Net solved this with breaking it out into the following properties:
NullValueHandling = NullValueHandling.Ignore,
DefaultValueHandling = DefaultValueHandling.Ignore,
is there any way to accomplish the below?
class foo
{
int index {get;set;}
string bar {get;set;}
}
new foo { index =0; bar = null }
would yield the following yaml:
index: 0
new foo { index =0; bar = "bar" }
would yield the following yaml:
index: 0
bar: bar
Thanks
Not sure this is what you want, but this is how I force all default values to be serialized:
public override string ToString()
{
var builder = new SerializerBuilder();
builder.EmitDefaults(); // Force even default values to be written, like 0, false.
var serializer = builder.Build();
var strWriter = new StringWriter();
serializer.Serialize(strWriter, this);
return strWriter.ToString();
}
I'm trying to use setup data from one table to allow me to format fields on the fly / dynamically. I know I can change field names and visibility based on the PXUIFieldAttribute class, but changing the precision or string length is a bit trickier, obviously. From the research I've done, I've come up with the following example code that seems like it should work - but I get the error:
"Unable to cast object of type 'PX.Data.PXUIFieldAttribute' to type 'PX.Data.PXDBDecimalAttribute'.
I don't see why this is occurring...
protected virtual void xTACOpenSourceDetail_RowSelected(PXCache sender, PXRowSelectedEventArgs e)
{
var osd = (PXCache)sender;
foreach (PXDBDecimalAttribute attribute in this.Caches<xTACOpenSourceDetail>().GetAttributes("Number1"))
{
PXDBDecimalAttribute someAttribute = attribute as PXDBDecimalAttribute;
if (someAttribute != null)
{
someAttribute.DBProperties._precision = 4;
}
}
}
I just tried the below code in sales order screen and it seems working!
var props = typeof(SOOrder).GetProperties().Where(prop => Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(PXDecimalAttribute)));
foreach (System.Reflection.PropertyInfo item in props)
{
PXDecimalAttribute.SetPrecision(this.Base.Caches[typeof(SOOrder)], item.Name, 1);
}
You might need to change this to match your DAC.
JavaScript allows functions to be treated as objects--if you first define a variable as a function, you can subsequently add properties to that function. How do you do the reverse, and add a function to an "object"?
This works:
var foo = function() { return 1; };
foo.baz = "qqqq";
At this point, foo() calls the function, and foo.baz has the value "qqqq".
However, if you do the property assignment part first, how do you subsequently assign a function to the variable?
var bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
What can I do now to arrange for bar.baz to have the value "qqqq" and bar() to call the function?
It's easy to be confused here, but you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) do what you want. Hopefully this will help clear things up.
First, every object in Javascript inherits from the Object object.
//these do the same thing
var foo = new Object();
var bar = {};
Second, functions ARE objects in Javascript. Specifically, they're a Function object. The Function object inherits from the Object object. Checkout the Function constructor
var foo = new Function();
var bar = function(){};
function baz(){};
Once you declare a variable to be an "Object" you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) convert it to a Function object. You'd need to declare a new Object of type Function (with the function constructor, assigning a variable an anonymous function etc.), and copy over any properties of methods from your old object.
Finally, anticipating a possible question, even once something is declared as a function, you can't (as far as I know) change the functionBody/source.
There doesn't appear to be a standard way to do it, but this works.
WHY however, is the question.
function functionize( obj , func )
{
out = func;
for( i in obj ){ out[i] = obj[i]; } ;
return out;
}
x = { a: 1, b: 2 };
x = functionize( x , function(){ return "hello world"; } );
x() ==> "hello world"
There is simply no other way to acheive this,
doing
x={}
x()
WILL return a "type error". because "x" is an "object" and you can't change it. its about as sensible as trying to do
x = 1
x[50] = 5
print x[50]
it won't work. 1 is an integer. integers don't have array methods. you can't make it.
Object types are functions and an object itself is a function instantiation.
alert([Array, Boolean, Date, Function, Number, Object, RegExp, String].join('\n\n'))
displays (in FireFox):
function Array() {
[native code]
}
function Boolean() {
[native code]
}
function Date() {
[native code]
}
function Function() {
[native code]
}
function Number() {
[native code]
}
function Object() {
[native code]
}
function RegExp() {
[native code]
}
function String() {
[native code]
}
In particular, note a Function object, function Function() { [native code] }, is defined as a recurrence relation (a recursive definition using itself).
Also, note that the answer 124402#124402 is incomplete regarding 1[50]=5. This DOES assign a property to a Number object and IS valid Javascript. Observe,
alert([
[].prop="a",
true.sna="fu",
(new Date()).tar="fu",
function(){}.fu="bar",
123[40]=4,
{}.forty=2,
/(?:)/.forty2="life",
"abc".def="ghi"
].join("\t"))
displays
a fu fu bar 4 2 life ghi
interpreting and executing correctly according to Javascript's "Rules of Engagement".
Of course there is always a wrinkle and manifest by =. An object is often "short-circuited" to its value instead of a full fledged entity when assigned to a variable. This is an issue with Boolean objects and boolean values.
Explicit object identification resolves this issue.
x=new Number(1); x[50]=5; alert(x[50]);
"Overloading" is quite a legitimate Javascript exercise and explicitly endorsed with mechanisms like prototyping though code obfuscation can be a hazard.
Final note:
alert( 123 . x = "not" );
alert( (123). x = "Yes!" ); /* ()'s elevate to full object status */
Use a temporary variable:
var xxx = function()...
then copy all the properties from the original object:
for (var p in bar) { xxx[p] = bar[p]; }
finally reassign the new function with the old properties to the original variable:
bar = xxx;
var A = function(foo) {
var B = function() {
return A.prototype.constructor.apply(B, arguments);
};
B.prototype = A.prototype;
return B;
};
NB: Post written in the style of how I solved the issue. I'm not 100% sure it is usable in the OP's case.
I found this post while looking for a way to convert objects created on the server and delivered to the client by JSON / ajax.
Which effectively left me in the same situation as the OP, an object that I wanted to be convert into a function so as to be able to create instances of it on the client.
In the end I came up with this, which is working (so far at least):
var parentObj = {}
parentObj.createFunc = function (model)
{
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function()
{
return (function (model)
{
// jQuery used to clone the model
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
return that;
})(model);
}
}
Which can then be used like:
var data = { _type: "Example", foo: "bar" };
parentObject.createFunc(data);
var instance = new parentObject.Example();
In my case I actually wanted to have functions associated with the resulting object instances, and also be able to pass in parameters at the time of instantiating it.
So my code was:
var parentObj = {};
// base model contains client only stuff
parentObj.baseModel =
{
parameter1: null,
parameter2: null,
parameterN: null,
func1: function ()
{
return this.parameter2;
},
func2: function (inParams)
{
return this._variable2;
}
}
// create a troop type
parentObj.createModel = function (data)
{
var model = $.extend({}, parentObj.baseModel, data);
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function(parameter1, parameter2, parameterN)
{
return (function (model)
{
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
that.parameter1 = parameter1;
that.parameter2 = parameter2;
that.parameterN = parameterN;
return that;
})(model);
}
}
And was called thus:
// models received from an AJAX call
var models = [
{ _type="Foo", _variable1: "FooVal", _variable2: "FooVal" },
{ _type="Bar", _variable1: "BarVal", _variable2: "BarVal" },
{ _type="FooBar", _variable1: "FooBarVal", _variable2: "FooBarVal" }
];
for(var i = 0; i < models.length; i++)
{
parentObj.createFunc(models[i]);
}
And then they can be used:
var test1 = new parentObj.Foo(1,2,3);
var test2 = new parentObj.Bar("a","b","c");
var test3 = new parentObj.FooBar("x","y","z");
// test1.parameter1 == 1
// test1._variable1 == "FooVal"
// test1.func1() == 2
// test2.parameter2 == "a"
// test2._variable2 == "BarVal"
// test2.func2() == "BarVal"
// etc
Here's easiest way to do this that I've found:
let bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
bar = Object.assign(() => console.log("do something"), bar)
This uses Object.assign to concisely make copies of all the the properties of bar onto a function.
Alternatively you could use some proxy magic.
JavaScript allows functions to be
treated as objects--you can add a
property to a function. How do you do
the reverse, and add a function to an
object?
You appear to be a bit confused. Functions, in JavaScript, are objects. And variables are variable. You wouldn't expect this to work:
var three = 3;
three = 4;
assert(three === 3);
...so why would you expect that assigning a function to your variable would somehow preserve its previous value? Perhaps some annotations will clarify things for you:
// assigns an anonymous function to the variable "foo"
var foo = function() { return 1; };
// assigns a string to the property "baz" on the object
// referenced by "foo" (which, in this case, happens to be a function)
foo.baz = "qqqq";
var bar = {
baz: "qqqq",
runFunc: function() {
return 1;
}
};
alert(bar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(bar.runFunc()); // should produce 1
I think you're looking for this.
can also be written like this:
function Bar() {
this.baz = "qqqq";
this.runFunc = function() {
return 1;
}
}
nBar = new Bar();
alert(nBar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(nBar.runFunc()); // should produce 1