I am working on Verigy 93K test program and I have a logic that I would like to know if there's an equivalent code in Origen.
I am working on Verigy 93K test program and I have this logic (IF condition) that I need to insert in my flow.
Basically, I have a variable called 'INSERTION' and this will have different values like 'GCORR', 'VCORR' and others.
I would like to know if there's an equivalent code like this in Origen.
I attached a snapshot, hope that it can help clarify my question more.
In this logic, I would like to check the INSERTION value and if the value is not equal to GCORR or VCORR, the logic should pass, else, fail.
Here is the screenshot:
This pull-request adds an official API for this.
This example would be implemented as:
whenever_any ne(:INSERTION, 'GCORR'), ne(:INSERTION, 'VCORR') do
# Your tests in here
end
That would produce something logically equivalent and which can be re-targeted to other platforms.
If you don't care about that and want to produce exactly as you have it in the above example, then this should work too (where the OR is hard-coded for V93K syntax):
whenever ne(:INSERTION, 'GCORR|VCORR') do
# Your tests in here
end
Here is the preliminary documentation of this feature from the above PR - https://github.com/Origen-SDK/origen_testers/blob/66345c9422d9fa6b2577af20110259e45c2bdd26/templates/origen_guides/program/flowapi.md.erb#L71
I couldn't find api support on flow control or variable values beyond "if/unless_enable" support which can help check for 1 or zero. One way is to use render.
render 'if #INSERTION != "GCORR|VCORR" then'
render '{'
# your code for non-GCORR_VCORR flow
render "} \n else \n { \n } "
Related
I am making a pizza delivery chatbot and one of the training samples is
Are you open right now?
PARAMETER NAME ENTITY RESOLVED VALUE
time #sys.time now
One of the responses I want to have is if the time is between 12 am and 6 am , the reponse I coded is :
{{#if $time> 12:00:00}}I think it is too late{/if}}
But the response i am getting is :
{#if 12:00:34> 12:10:00}I think it is too late{/if}, which is wrong. Can someone help me on how to resolve this.
TIA
The Response section has a very very simple templating system - it allows for parameter/value replacement, and that is about it.
So you can specify a parameter value from an input phrase using something like $parameter-name, while parameter values in a Context or Event would be #context-name.parmaeter-name. You don't need the {braces} to do the evaluation, since those are used to escape the $ and # as special characters. So if you needed to show "$100", you would write that as ${100}. If you need the braces to be displayed, you'd include those inside another set of braces, which is why your text seems to get the braces removed.
You will need to put this processing in your fulfillment code. Libraries such as multivocal will let you create responses and setup response logic using templates. (Multivocal uses the handlebars templating library, for example.)
In Cucumber you can write Then expressions and their step definitions to verify the results. The problem is I don't want to write 2 different step definitions for checking the outcome. One example would be like this:
Then the transaction is successful
and
Then the transaction is not successful
How can I get around this?
I've found out that in Ruby you could consolidate step definitions by using capturing optional groups as described [here]. That is:
Then /^I should( not)? see the following columns: "([^"]*)"$/ do |negate, columns|
within('table thead tr') do
columns.split(', ').each do |column|
negate ? page.should_not(have_content(column)) : page.should(have_content(column))
end
end
end
But I don't know whether this is possible in Java or not. And even if it is what type of variable should I be capturing?
Why not write two step definitions. Each one is simpler, on topic, doesn't require a regex. If you delegate the work the step definitions do to a helper method you can remove almost all of the code duplication as well
Then I should see the following columns |cols|
should_see_cols(cols)
end
Then I should not see the following columns |cols|
should_not_see_cols(cols)
end
Now you have super simple crystal clear step definitions and you can write your method/ methods however you want.
Step definition duplication is irrelevant if all your step definitions just make a single call to a helper method. You can be as DRY as you like with your helper methods and still keep your scenarios super simple and remove the need to use regex's and complex logic in your step defs.
In Java, I would create one method with capture groups (is|is not), and derive a boolean from that which I would compare to the value. On the other hand, this adds logic to your test implementation so there is something to be said for #diabolist's solution of having 2 distinct step definitions.
Lets say that there is a function in my Delphi app:
MsgBox
and there is a string which has MsgBox in it.
I know what most of you are going to say is that its possible, but I think it is possible because I opened the compiled exe(compiled using delphi XE2) using a Resource Editor, and that resource editor was built for Delphi. In that, I could see most of the code I wrote, as I wrote it. So since the variables names, function names etc aren't changed during compile, there should a way to execute the functions from a string, but how? Any help will be appreciated.
EDIT:
What I want to do is to create a simple interpreter/scripting engine. And this is how its supposed to work:
There are two files, scr.txt and arg.txt
scr.txt contains:
msg_show
0
arg.txt contains:
"Message"
And now let me explain what that 0 is:
First, scr.txt's first line is function name
second line tells that at which line its arguments are in the arg.txt, i.e 0 tells that "Message" is the argument for msg_show.
I hope my question is now clear.
I want to make a simple scripting engine.
In order to execute arbitrary code stored as text, you need a compiler or an interpreter. Either you need to write one yourself, or embed one that already exists. Realistically, the latter option is your best option. There are a number available but in my view it's hard to look past dwscript.
I think I've already solved my problem! The answer is in this question's first answer.
EDIT:
But with that, as for a workaround of the problem mentioned in first comment, I have a very easy solution.
You don't need to pass all the arguments/parameters to it. Just take my example:
You have two files, as mentioned in the question. Now you need to execute the files. It is as simple as that:
read the first line of scr.txt
check if it's a function. If not, skip the line
If yes, read the next line which tells the index where it's arguments are in arg.txt
pass on the index(an integer) to the "Call" function.
Now to the function which has to be executed, it should know how many arguments it needs. i.e 2
Lets say that the function is "Sum(a,b : integer)".It needs 2 arguments
Now let the function read the two arguments from arg.txt.
And its done!
I hope it will help you all.
And I can get some rep :)
I try to hide the getPage [[+pageNav]] Placeholder if there is no pagination. But I can't do the following.
[[!+pageNav:notempty=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+pageNav]]</ul>`]]
Does someone know how I can hide the element with an apropriate output filter? (without own extra snippet). I also tried the following and some other (not likely to work variations).
[[!+pageNav:isnot=``:then=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+pageNav]]</ul>`]]`
Are you calling that code in a chunk that is cached?
Otherwise i've experienced this aswell and it seems custom placeholders sometimes behave that way, it's probably due to the fact that they actually have some unprocessed value during the IF computation but when it's actually output you see nothing. Or that the value is somehow "null" instead of "" while modx output filter might do a strict comparison.
If you're not calling it in a cached chunk or part of code, i suggest first trying with another getPage placeholder such as pageCount or total.
Like:
[[!+pageCount:gt=`1`:then=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
If that still doesn't work, a last resort in the form of a simple snippet will always solve it, like:
[[!outputPagination? &total=`[[+total]]` &limit=`XX` &output=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
In snippet:
if ($total > $limit) {
return $output;
}
Shouldn't it be...
[[!+page.nav:notempty=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
Well, there is a much more easier way to do it than in the first answer. It's like TheMistaC says, even if my answer is a lot easier:
[[!+page.nav:notempty=`
[[!+page.nav]]
`]]
I use it to display a list of articles with getResources, so I know this works fine.
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).