When I instantiate multiple objects, the newer objects override the properties of the older objects, for example:
object1.color = red;
object2.color = yellow;
object3.color = green;
object4.color = blue;
If I try to return object1.color, then it will return blue. Is there a way around this? I have been told that the only way to do it, is to set the value again every time.
Normally, you wouldn't experience this issue, unless we are talking about static class fields:
public class Program
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Foo object1 = new Foo();
Foo object2 = new Foo();
object1.instanceColor = "red";
object2.instanceColor = "green";
object1.staticColor = "red";
object2.staticColor = "green";
System.out.println(object1.staticColor);
System.out.println(object2.staticColor);
// output is "green green"
System.out.println(object1.instanceColor);
System.out.println(object2.instanceColor);
// output is "red green"
}
}
public class Foo
{
public static String staticColor;
public String instanceColor;
public Foo() {}
}
Static fields would indeed be shared between all instances of the class.
Instance fields, however, belong to the instances and do not affect each other.
Related
I have a piece of code below where Employee class creates object of AppraisalCalculator using reflection. I want to mock this AppraisalCalculator object using PowerMockito.
class AppraisalCalculator {
public int appraisal() {
return 300;
}
}
class Employee {
public int updateSalary() {
// line 1
AppraisalCalculator ac =
AppraisalCalculator.class.getConstructor().newInstance();
return ac.appraisal();
}
}
class TestRunner {
#Test
public void test() {
AppraisalCalulator acMock=PowerMockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
PowerMockito
.whenNew(AppraisalCalculator.class)
.withNoArguments()
.thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue=600;
Assert.equals(expectedValue,actualValue);
}
}
Here, even though I have mocked the Appraisal calculator object, it still calls the real appraisal() method from AppraisalCalculator. If the actual AppraisalCalculator at line 1 is created using new Operator instead of newInstance() then this mocking works.
Can anyone explain why this is not working if the actual object is created using reflection? What can I do to mock this Object in such scenario?
Let me first start by rephrasing your question will fully working code.
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(Employee.class)
public class TestRunner {
#Test
public void test() throws Exception {
AppraisalCalculator acMock = PowerMockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
PowerMockito
.whenNew(AppraisalCalculator.class)
.withNoArguments()
.thenReturn(acMock);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
}
Then, the way PowerMock works is that the PowerMockRunner will look at each class that needs to be prepared (here Employee), then look for a call to the constructor we want to replace and do it. This is done at class loading. The real class bytecode calling the constructor is replaced by the one returning the mock.
The thing is that if you are using reflection, PowerMock can't know by reading the bytecode that this constructor will be called. It will only be known dynamically afterwards. So no mocking done.
If you really do need to create the class to be mocked by reflection, I would actually refactor the code a bit.
In Employee I would add something like
protected AppraisalCalculator getCalculator() {
try {
return AppraisalCalculator.class.newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
while is a method dedicated to isolate the calculator construction.
The, just create a child class
#Test
public void testWithChildClass() {
// Note that you don't need PowerMock anymore
AppraisalCalculator acMock = Mockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = new Employee() {
#Override
protected AppraisalCalculator getCalculator() {
return acMock;
}
};
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
or a partial mock (spy)
#Test
public void test2() {
// No PowerMock either here
AppraisalCalculator acMock = Mockito.mock(AppraisalCalculator.class);
when(acMock.appraisal()).thenReturn(600);
Employee emp = spy(new Employee());
doReturn(acMock).when(emp).getCalculator();
int actualValue = emp.updateSalary();
int expectedValue = 600;
assertEquals(expectedValue, actualValue);
}
I was looking into Haxe abstracts and was very interested in building an abstract that would wrap a class and unify it to, in my case, an Int.
#:forward()
abstract Abs(Op)
{
public inline function new(value:Int = 0, name:String = "unnamed" )
{
this = new Op();
this.value = value;
this.name = name;
}
#:to
private inline function toInt():Int
{
return this.value;
}
}
class Op
{
public var value:Int = 0;
public var name:String = "no name";
public function new()
{
}
}
The problem I ran in to is when defining a #:from method - it has to be static and can take only one parameter - a new value. So whenever I set the abstract's instance value from the #:from method I will have to create a new instance of the abstract, thus resetting all the variables.
Basically what I'm talking about is this:
var a = new Abs(5, "my abs"); // value is 5; name is "my abs"
a = 100; // value is 100; name is reset to "unnamed" but I want it to be preserved
As much as I could find out we cannot overload the = operator in abstracts other than through implicit casting with a #:from method and I haven't found a way to really achieve this with macros.
If you have any ideas on how this can be done, please provide a minimalist example.
It depends what you want to do, but if you use this:
var a = new Abs(5, "my abs");
var myInt:Int = a;
It will use the abstract Abs.toInt function.
#:to
private inline function toInt():Int
{
return this.value;
}
The other way around also works:
var million = 1000000;
var myAbs:Abs = million;
It will use the static Abs.fromInt function.
#:from
static inline function fromInt(value:Int)
{
return new Abs(value, "what");
}
This is because it uses the implicit cast. http://haxe.org/manual/types-abstract-implicit-casts.html
Try it yourself: http://try.haxe.org/#Ae1a8
Is that what you are looking for?
In the section on handling Java Beans with Groovy of Groovy In Action, I found this script (slightly modified):
class Book{
String title
}
def groovyBook = new Book()
// explicit way
groovyBook.setTitle('What the heck, really ?')
println groovyBook.getTitle()
// short-hand way
groovyBook.title = 'I am so confused'
println groovyBook.title
There are no such methods in the class Book so how does that work ?
Yes, they are auto defined and calling book.title is actually calling book.getTitle()
See http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy+Beans
You can see this in action with the following script:
def debug( clazz ) {
println '----'
clazz.metaClass.methods.findAll { it.name.endsWith( 'Name' ) || it.name.endsWith( 'Age' ) }.each { println it }
}
class A {
String name
int age
}
debug( A )
// Prints
// public int A.getAge()
// public java.lang.String A.getName()
// public void A.setAge(int)
// public void A.setName(java.lang.String)
// Make name final
class B {
final String name
int age
}
debug( B )
// Prints
// public int B.getAge()
// public java.lang.String B.getName()
// public void B.setAge(int)
// Make name private
class C {
private String name
int age
}
debug( C )
// Prints
// public int C.getAge()
// public void C.setAge(int)
// Try protected
class D {
protected String name
int age
}
debug( D )
// Prints
// public int D.getAge()
// public void D.setAge(int)
// And public?
class E {
public String name
int age
}
debug( E )
// Prints
// public int E.getAge()
// public void E.setAge(int)
Several notes:
For all property fields(public ones only), there are autogenerated accesors.
Default visibility is public. So, you should use private/protected keyword to restrict accessor generation.
Inside an accessor there is direct field access. like this.#title
Inside a constructor you have direct access to! This may be unexpected.
For boolean values there are two getters with is and get prefixes.
Each method with such prefixes, even java ones are treated as accessor, and can be referenced in groovy using short syntax.
But sometimes, if you have ambiguous call there may be class cast exception.
Example code for 4-th point.
class A{
private int i = 0;
A(){
i = 4
println("Constructor has direct access. i = $i")
}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
int getI(){i}
}
def a = new A() // Constructor has direct access. i = 4
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
println a.i // 5
4-th note is important, if you have some logic in accessor, and want it to be applied every time you call it. So in constructor you should explicit call setI() method!
Example for 7
class A{
private int i = 0;
void setI(String val) { println("String version.")}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
}
def a = new A()
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
a.i = "1s5" // GroovyCastException: Cannot cast object '1s5' with class 'java.lang.String' to class 'int'
So, as I see property-like access uses first declared accessor, and don't support overloading. Maybe will be fixed later.
Groovy generates public accessor / mutator methods for fields when and only when there is no access modifier present. For fields declared as public, private or protected no getters and setters will be created.
For fields declared as final only accessors will be created.
All that applies for static fields analogously.
I have a class that I've defined, and I have a number of child classes derived from it. The parent class has an enum (let's call it 'Barf'). Each descendant ALSO has an enum with the same name but not the same values. What I'm trying to figure out how to do is write a method in the ancestor class that gets the version of Barf for the actual class of the instantiated object. So if I create an instance of Ancestor, I'd like to have this method process the entries for Ancestor.Barf . If I create an instance of one of the child classes of Ancestor, I'd like to have the method process Childx.Barf values.
Obviously this is going to be a Reflection solution, but my reflection skills are pretty sparse. Any help?
Just for the fun of it, here is a possible approach:
public class Ancestor {
public enum Caffeine {
Tea,
Coffee
}
public void ProcessValues() {
var type = GetType();
var nestedEnums = from t in type.GetNestedTypes()
where t.IsEnum
select t;
var nestedEnum = nestedEnums.Single();
foreach(var val in Enum.GetValues(nestedEnum)) {
Console.WriteLine("Drinking {0}", val);
}
}
}
public class Descendant : Ancestor {
public new enum Caffeine {
Jolt,
RedBull
}
}
// The following prints:
// Drinking Jolt
// Drinking RedBull
Ancestor x = new Descendant();
x.ProcessValues();
Of course, you could achieve the same thing using polymorphism:
public class Ancestor {
public enum Caffeine {
Tea,
Coffee
}
protected virtual Type GetNestedEnum() {
return typeof(Ancestor.Caffeine);
}
public void ProcessValues() {
var nestedEnum = GetNestedEnum();
foreach(var val in Enum.GetValues(nestedEnum)) {
Console.WriteLine("Drinking {0}", val);
}
}
}
public class Descendant : Ancestor {
public new enum Caffeine {
Jolt,
RedBull
}
protected override Type GetNestedEnum() {
return typeof(Descendant.Caffeine);
}
}
As Justin Morgan has pointed out however, having the need for such a construct may be an indication of an underlying design issue in your code.
I am trying to generate a Name based on type of an object. In my system, I have,
class Employee {}
Class ContractEmp:Employee{}
class Manager:Employee{}
I am trying to generate name which looks like ContractEmp1 Where 1 will come from incrementer. I am trying to use Generics.
Any Help
Thank you,
With an extension method you could do something like this:
public static class NameExtension
{
private static Dictionary<string, int> counters = new Dictionary<string, int>();
public static string MakeUpName<T>(this T #object)
{
var t = typeof(T);
if ( ! counters.ContainsKey(t.FullName))
counters[t.FullName] = 0;
return t.Name + counters[t.FullName]++;
}
}
Test:
[TestFixture]
class NameTest
{
[Test]
public void test()
{
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
Console.WriteLine(new NameTest().MakeUpName());
}
}
Output:
NameTest0
NameTest1
NameTest2
NameTest3
You can use a private static int in the Employee class which gets incremented on each constructor call. Combining this number with the typeof(this).Name value you can generate the names as described. Do note that the counter will count for all Employee extending classes so if you want an consecutive list of numbers for each Employee extending class, a specific counter should be implemented for every extending class. Also, the counters will be set to zero each time the application restarts.
public Class ContractEmp:Employee{
private static int counter = 1;
private String name = "";
public ContractEmp() {
name = typeof(this).Name + counter++;
}
}
Something like this should work!