I am new to Alloy. I am trying to formalize a system using Alloy. Here I want to execute certain operations based on the events. For this, I have a list of events that I want to track using enum Event. And I am going through all the State using ordering function of Alloy. In each state, I am taking the mixture object and running the operation.
Problem that I am facing currently is - In my system, I have two sig object - ClassA and ClassB. After executing the alloy code I am generating the flow diagram. Unfortunately, I am noticing my ClassB get referenced to ClassA of Mixture object. I am attaching the diagram
I am also attaching my full code here. Can anyone help me debugging the problem, please? I have tried to impose different predicate and logic, but none of them worked.
open util/ordering[State]
abstract sig Base{
name: String,
value : Int
}{
value >= 0
}
sig ClassA extends Base{
}{
name = "Class A"
}
sig ClassB extends Base{
}{
name = "Class B"
}
enum Event {EVENT1, EVENT2}
sig State{
mixture: Mixture
}
sig Mixture{
classA: Base,
classB: Base
} {
classA != classB
}
fact {
all s: State, s': s.next{
s.mixture ! in s'.*next.mixture
operation [s.mixture]
}
}
pred operation [mixture: Mixture]{
all ev: Event| ev = EVENT1 => {
mixture.classA.name = "Class A" => {
mixture.classA.value = 1
}
}
}
run random {} for 3
You have
sig Mixture{
classA: Base,
classB: Base
}
In your diagram, the relations are named classA and classB. Since each can point to any arbitrary Base, there's nothing stopping classA from pointing to a ClassB instance. You probably want something like
sig Mixture {
, classA: ClassA
, classB: ClassB
}
Related
I have two immutable groovy classes that have a few shared values that I'm trying to abstract to a parent class. However when I create the following, the second test case always fails. Although everything compiles correctly and no error is thrown at runtime, when I assign the parent property int he constructor, it is never set, resulting in a null value. I havent found any documentation that forbids this, but I'm wondering is this even possible? I've tried a number of configuration of Annotations and class-types (e.g. removing abstract from the parent) but nothing seems to work short of just removing the #Immutable tag altogether.
abstract class TestParent {
String parentProperty1
}
#ToString(includeNames = true)
#Immutable
class TestChild extends TestParent {
String childProperty1
String childProperty2
}
class TestCase {
#Test
void TestOne() {
TestChild testChild = new TestChild(
childProperty1: "childOne",
childProperty2: "childTwo",
parentProperty1: "parentOne"
)
assert testChild
assert testChild.parentProperty1
}
}
Based on the code for the ImmutableASTTransformation, the Map-arg constructor added by the createConstructorMapCommon method does not include a call to super(args) in the method body.
which means that immutable classes are self contained by default
Now if you want to do it you need to use composition instead of inheritance and this is an example of how you can do it :
import groovy.transform.*
#TupleConstructor
class A {
String a
}
#Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[A])
class B {
#Delegate A base
String b
}
def b = new B(base: new A("a"), b: "b")
assert b.a
i hope this will help :)
class Base, and class Ext extends Base.
class B<T> with typed method foo<T>(value:T)
Why B<Base>.foo doest not accept instance of B<Ext> (implicit downcast of the type parameter?) by default?
Here is an example
http://try.haxe.org/#d443f
class Test {
static function main() {
var bExt = new B(new Ext());
var bBase = new B(new Base());
bBase.foo(bExt);
//ofc
//bBase.foo(cast bExt);
}
}
class B<T>
{
public function new(v:T)
{
}
public function foo(v:B<T>)
{
//
}
}
class Base {
public function new(){}
}
class Ext extends Base {
public function new(){
super();
}
}
Is there any way to trigger implicit cast of the type parameter for B.foo?
There are three ways to interpret and answer your question:
1. foo(v:B<T>):
This is your example and it doesn't compile because T isn't allowed to be be variant. It happens because of the very existence of foo and because allowing bBase.foo(bExt), that is, unifying bExt with bBase, will then allow bBaseOfbExt.foo(bBase).
It is the fact that foo exists and that it can potentially modify the type that makes the bExt unification with bBase unsafe; you can see a similar (but maybe clearer) explanation in the manual, using arrays: type system – variance.
2. foo(v:T):
This is closer to what's on the body of your question (but not in the example) and it works fine.
3. foo<A>(v:B<A>):
Finally, if you have a type parameterized method, it also works, but you'd probably face other variance issues elsewhere.
I came across a lot of code in our company codebase with the following structure
class Base
{
public Base (var a, var b)
{
base_a = a;
base_b = b;
}
var base_a;
var base_b;
}
class Derived:Base
{
publc Derived (var a,b,c,d): base (a,d)
{
der_c = c;
der_d = d;
}
var der_c;
var der_d;
var der_e;
}
class Ref
{
Base _ref;
public Ref( var a,b,c,d)
{
_ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d)
}
public void method( )
{
_ref.der_e = 444; // won't compile
}
}
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ? What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using an object derived class for _ref ? Just the fact that using a base class reference can hold multiple derived class objects ? If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d) ). What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ? I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e = 444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice. What is the idea of having such a structure and what is the correct of initializing a member of a derived class object after it has been constructed ?
Those are too many questions in a single post.
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ?
For initializing der_e you will have to have Reference of Derived class as it knows about the der_e property and not Base class.
What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using
an object derived class for _ref ?
Yes that's called Polymorphism which is the essence of Object Oriented Programming. It allows us to hold various concrete implementations without knowing about the actual implementation.
If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class
be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new
Derived (a,b,c,d) )
There is no such rule. It depends on your scenario. If the values are not meant to be changed after the creation of the object and the values are known before hand during construction of the object then they should be initialized during construction.
Again if there are various scenarios like sometimes values are known and sometimes not then there can be Overloaded Constructors, which take different arguments.
What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ?
That is perfectly fine, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. The question is not a concrete one but an abstract one in which it is difficult to comment on what you are trying to achieve.
I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e =
444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice.
I am sharing some Java code which is similar to C# as I am from Java background
//This class knows about Base and nothing about the Derived class
class UserOfBase{
Base ref;
//Constructor of UserOfBase gets passed an instance of Base
public UserOfBase(Base bInstance){
this.ref = bInstance;
}
//Now this class should not cast it into Derived class as that would not be a polymorphic behavior. In that case you have got your design wrong.
public void someMethod(){
Derived derivedRef = (Derived)ref; //This should not happen here
}
}
I am sharing some references which would help you with this, as I think the answer can be very long to explain.
Factory Pattern
Dependency Injection
Head First Design Patterns
Posts on SO regarding polymorphism
You can create a constructor in your derived class and map the objects or create an extension method like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void FillPropertiesFromBaseClass<T1, T2>(this T2 drivedClass, T1 baseClass) where T2 : T1
{
//Get the list of properties available in base class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T1).GetProperties();
properties.ToList().ForEach(property =>
{
//Check whether that property is present in derived class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo isPresent = drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name);
if (isPresent != null && property.CanWrite)
{
//If present get the value and map it
object value = baseClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).GetValue(baseClass, null);
drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).SetValue(drivedClass, value, null);
}
});
}
}
for example when you have to class like this:
public class Fruit {
public float Sugar { get; set; }
public int Size { get; set; }
}
public class Apple : Fruit {
public int NumberOfWorms { get; set; }
}
you can initialize derived class by this code:
//constructor
public Apple(Fruit fruit)
{
this.FillPropertiesFromBaseClass(fruit);
}
I am creating a class diagram but I was wondering if there would be any association between the 2 classes shown below - as far as I understand it, for association, ClassA must have an instance of ClassB which in this case there is not, however, it does need to know about a variable of ClassB, so is there an association between these 2 classes?
public class ClassA()
{
int val = ClassB.x
}
public class ClassB()
{
public static int x = 5;
}
Sure there is association. You can't use ClassA without existing of ClassB.
Yes there is an association between these two classes. The association is neither an aggregation nor a composition, it is a "uses/usage" dependency.
ClassA ------Uses-----> ClassB
Take a look at this link to know more about different types of dependencies
This question may appear to have been answered before but I have been unable to find exactly what I need. Here is my situation:
// Base class
interface IAnimal {};
public abstract class Animal : IAnimal{}
// Derived classes
interface IDog {}
public class Dog : Animal, IDog { }
interface ICat { }
public class Cat : Animal, ICat { }
interface ITiger { }
public class Tiger : Animal, ITiger { }
interface ILion { }
public class Lion : Animal, ILion { }
// Collection Classes
interface IPets { }
public class Pets
{
IDog dog = new Dog();
ICat cat = new Cat();
}
interface ICircus { }
public class Circus
{
ITiger tiger = new Tiger();
ILion lion = new Lion();
}
I would like to create the collections at run time in an generic Event class by reading in a list animals from xml that would make up the collection. What would be the correct way to accomplish this?
Thanks in advance.
This is kind of an answer to my own question. Maybe this will help others.
I chose a very generic example to illustrate my situation because I have uses for this in many places in Windows Forms, XNA and Silverlight that are all very different.
When I used the Activator, I found out that it assumes the executing assembly. My method is in a library so I had to load a different assembly. Next I had to make sure that I had the right namespace. My base class is in a library and the derived classes are in another namespace so this will require refactoring to properly create the list.
Another problem I found was that the Activator assumes a constructor with no parameters. In my test case all my derived classes are XNA game components with a parameter of type Game.
Have to do some refactoring to test out the interfaces and how the game objects are to interact.
Will be back to this list when I have something further.
Does this sort of example help? (It's from some of my code I happened to have handy.) The key point here is the use of reflection in Activator.CreateInstance(...).
public static List<dynamic> LoadChildEntities(XElement entityElt)
{
var children = new List<dynamic>();
foreach(XElement childElt in entityElt.Elements("entity"))
{
// Look up the C# type of the child entity.
string childTypename = "MyNamespace." + Convert.ToString(childElt.Attribute("type").Value);
Type childType = Type.GetType(childTypename);
if(childType != null)
{
// Construct the child entity and add it to the list.
children.Add(Activator.CreateInstance(childType, childElt));
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("No such class: " + childTypename);
}
}
return children;
}
If you want a list of IAnimal instead, it wouldn't be too tricky to change.