For special threading issue in my app I created an object with a runOrQueue() method which accepts a block. Here is a simplified version for illustrative purpose:
class SpecialThread {
fun runOrQueue() {}
}
The problem is that when I'm trying to write code using this method, the IDE autocompletes first to a Kotlin extension method named run(), defined in the standard library:
#kotlin.internal.InlineOnly
public inline fun <T, R> T.run(block: T.() -> R): R {…}
Here is a screen capture of the IDE autocompletion:
This is especially dangerous in the context of my app, since both run and runOrQueue would have similar results (both running a block of code), but the standard library version would crash in certain situations, wrapped properly in the runOrQueue method.
Is there any way I can explicitly disable the possibility of using the run extension on this particular object of my creation? In fact, reviewing the code I wrote myself, I've already mistakenly used run twice instead of the longer method name, and that is not good.
If you really really don't want to rename your method, and you're absolutely sure that you'll never use the run function...
You can actually exclude any method from autocompletion by clicking the intention action icon next to the suggestion:
In Settings, you can find this under Editor -> General -> Auto Import, and then Exclude from import and completion. For example, to exclude the built-in run function, you'd add this entry, either via the intention mentioned above, or manually:
If you make this project scoped, the exclusion can be checked into VCS as well, you'll find it under .idea/codeInsightSettings.xml, which would have these corresponding contents to exclude run, pretty self explanatory:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<project version="4">
<component name="JavaProjectCodeInsightSettings">
<excluded-names>
<name>kotlin.run</name>
</excluded-names>
</component>
</project>
While the comments to rename the method are worthy, I kept trying things to prevent the wrong code from compiling and managed to reach a compromise, which might be generalizable to other possible symbol clashes in the future.
First, in order to confuse the compiler, a very similar method is added to the object:
#Deprecated(level = DeprecationLevel.ERROR,
message = "This is not the method you are looking for (waves hand)",
replaceWith = ReplaceWith("runOrQueue()"))
fun <T, R> run(block: T.() -> R): R {
TODO("Don't use this")
}
This is not exactly the same as the standard library run(), so when you start typing in the IDE you still get one suggestion for the standard library, and another for the object method. Fortunately, even if the autocomplete version is used, since there are two very similar run() methods, the compiler will complain about ambiguity.
In fact, after adding this method and rebuilding the source, the compiler caught two more instances of the mistake:
e: PasswordPresenter.kt: (181, 49): Using 'run(T.() -> R): R' is an error. This is not the method you are looking for (waves hand)
e: PasswordPresenter.kt: (181, 49): Type inference failed: Not enough information to infer parameter T in fun <T, R> run(block: T.() -> R): R
Please specify it explicitly.
e: PasswordPresenter.kt: (258, 33): Using 'run(T.() -> R): R' is an error. This is not the method you are looking for (waves hand)
e: PasswordPresenter.kt: (258, 33): Type inference failed: Not enough information to infer parameter T in fun <T, R> run(block: T.() -> R): R
Please specify it explicitly.
Not the prettiest in the world, but it comes close and gets the job done. Or as Sally Amaki would say, fake it till you make it.
I'm afraid this isn't really possible as run is in the std library and is defined as an extension on any type:
/**
* Calls the specified function [block] with `this` value as its receiver and returns its result.
*/
#kotlin.internal.InlineOnly
public inline fun <T, R> T.run(block: T.() -> R): R {
contract {
callsInPlace(block, InvocationKind.EXACTLY_ONCE)
}
return block()
}
Some options:
For the parts of your codebase where you don't want run to be used, write it in Java instead (as Kotlin and Java are completely interporable). This solution is not ideal.
Don't write run when you mean runOrQueue.
Write a custom lint extension to flag usages of run as a warning or an error:
https://developer.android.com/studio/write/lint
EDIT:
Forpas gave another good solution to rename your function to queueOrRun. The problem with this is the OR, I imagine your method attempts to run and only falls back to queue if that is not possible, therefore changing the name of the function will make it less clear what it does.
Related
I've seen a bunch of questions related to this subject, but none of them offers anything that would be an acceptable solution (please, no loading external Groovy scripts, no calling to sh step etc.)
The operation I need to perform is a oneliner, but pipeline limitations made it impossible to write anything useful in that unter-language...
So, here's minimal example:
#NonCPS
def encodeProperties(Map properties) {
properties.collect { k, v -> "$k=$v" }.join('|')
}
node('dockerized') {
stage('Whatever') {
properties = [foo: 123, bar: "foo"]
echo encodeProperties(properties)
}
}
Depending on whether I add or remove #NonCPS annotation, or type declaration of the argument, the error changes, but it never gives any reason for what happened. It's basically random noise, that contradicts the reality of the situation (at times it would claim that some irrelevant object doesn't have a method encodeProperties, other times it would say that it cannot find a method encodeProperties with a signature that nobody was trying to call it with (like two arguments instead of one) and so on.
From reading the documentation, which is of disastrous quality, I sort of understood that maybe functions in general aren't serializable, and that is why you need to explain this explicitly to the Groovy interpreter... I'm sorry, this makes no sense, but this is roughly what documentation says.
Obviously, trying to use collect inside stage creates a load of new errors... Which are, at least understandable in that the author confesses that their version of Groovy doesn't implement most of the Groovy standard...
It's just a typo. You defined encodeProperties but called encodeProprties.
I have a Groovy script that lets the user define some dynamic properties and methods and later executes a user-defined closure. A script would look like this:
// init properties and methods dynamically at runtime
context.prop1 = "Some test value"
context.method1 = { String input ->
"exec " + input.toUpperCase()
}
// "this" is set to the context variable from above
run {
println method1( prop1 )
}
So in the beginning of the script, a context is initialized with user-defined properties (e.g. prop1) and methods (e.g. method1). The context is then used as this pointer in the run closure. I have achieved this by dynamically extending the meta class of the context and setting the context as delegate of the run closure (with DELEGATE_FIRST as resolves strategy).
Currently I am struggling at type checking. Before executing the run closure, I would like to check if method1 really expects prop1. I have looked into the DelegatesTo annotation, but that doesn't seem to work for dynamically extended objects. I have also played with the AST, but since my knowledge on that topic is limited, I haven't come up with a solution. If what I want to achieve is possible, any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
You want to add a method to a context at runtime and then type check this before execution of that method.
Type checking is done at compile time. That is before anything of your program is executed. There is normally no chance this can ever check anything that will only happen at runtime, unless you have a way to statically declare it and give the compiler the power to do the check. But this means normally, you will have to do static compilation.
One way would be to use type checking extensions, but I think in your case that might be overkill. A more simple way would be to use extension modules. And the most simple way would be to use custom script base class.
But for any of these solution you will need static compilation to really have type checking, same for DelegatesTo (which is more used in combination with extension modules). For a type checked DSL a mix of type checking extensions and extension modules can work very well. But you will of course loose more dynamic features of the language and some simplicity.
I'm doing this Ensime package for Atom.io https://github.com/ensime/ensime-atom and I've been thinking about the possibility to use scala.js instead of writing Coffeescript.
Atom is a web based editor which is scripted with js and is node.js based. A plugin/package defines it's main entry point by pointing out a javascript object with a few specific.
I figured I should start out simple and try using scala.js replacing the simplest coffeescript file I have:
{View} = require 'atom-space-pen-views'
# View for the little status messages down there where messages from Ensime server can be shown
module.exports =
class StatusbarView extends View
#content: ->
#div class: 'ensime-status inline-block'
initialize: ->
serialize: ->
init: ->
#attach()
attach: =>
statusbar = document.querySelector('status-bar')
statusbar?.addLeftTile {item: this}
setText: (text) =>
#text("Ensime: #{text}").show()
destroy: ->
#detach()
As you can see this exports a require.js module and is a class extending a class fetched with require as well.
Sooo.
I'm thinking I'd just use Dynamic for the require dep as I've seen on SO How to invoke nodejs modules from scala.js?:
import js.Dynamic.{global => g}
import js.DynamicImplicits._
private[views] object SpacePen {
private val spacePenViews = require("atom-space-pen-views")
val view = spacePenViews.view
}
But if I wanted to type the super-class, could I just make a facade-trait and do asInstanceOf?
Secondly, I wonder how I can export my class as a node module. I found this:
https://github.com/rockymadden/scala-node/blob/master/main/src/main/coffeescript/example.coffee
Is this the right way? Do I need to do the sandboxing? Couldn't I just get moduleimported from global and write module.exports = _some_scala_object_?
I'm also wondering how I could extend existing js classes. The same problem as asked here, but I don't really understand the answer:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-js/l0gSOSiqubs
My code so far:
private[views] object SpacePen {
private val spacePenViews = js.Dynamic.global.require("atom-space-pen-views")
type View = spacePenViews.view
}
class StatusBarView extends SpacePen.View {
override def content =
super.div()
}
gives me compile errors that I can't extend sealed trait Dynamic. Of course.
Any pointers highly appreciated!
I'm not particularly expert in Node per se, but to answer your first question, yes -- if you have a pointer to a JS object, and you know the details of its type, you can pretty much always define a facade trait and asInstanceOf to use it. That ought to work.
As for the last bit, you basically can't extend JS classes in Scala.js -- it just doesn't work. The way most of us get around that is by defining implicit classes, or using implicit def's, to get the appearance of extending without actually doing so.
For example, given JS class Foo, I can write
implicit class RichFoo(foo:Foo) {
def method1() = { ... }
}
This is actually a wrapper around Foo, but calling code can simply call foo.method1() without worrying about that detail.
You can see this approach in action very heavily in jquery-facade, particularly in the relationship between JQuery (the pure facade), JQueryTyped (some tweaked methods over JQuery to make them work better in Scala), and JQueryExtensions (some higher-level functions built around JQuery). These are held together using implicit def's in package.scala. As far as calling code is concerned, all of these simply look like methods on JQuery.
I decided to start a new project to get into hacklang, and after fixing some if the problems I initially ran into transitioning from php habits, I ran into the following errors:
Unbound name: str_replace
Unbound name: empty
Doing some research I found that this is due to using 'legacy' php which isn't typechecked, and will error with //strict.
That's fine and all, empty() was easy enough to replace, however str_replace() is a bit more difficult.
Is there an equivalent function that will work with //strict? Or at least something similar.
I'm aware that I could use //decl but I feel like that defeats the purpose in my case.
Is there at least any way to tell which functions are implemented in hack and which are not in the documentation as I couldn't find one?
For reference (though it isn't too relevant to the question itself), here is the code:
<?hh //strict
class HackMarkdown {
public function parse(string $content) : string {
if($content===null){
throw new RuntimeException('Empty Content');
}
$prepared = $this->prepare($content);
}
private function prepare(string $contentpre) : Vector<string>{
$contentpre = str_replace(array("\r\n","\r"),"\n",$contentpre);
//probably need more in here
$prepared = Vector::fromArray(explode($contentpre,"\n"));
//and here
return $prepared;
}
}
You don't need to change your code at all. You just need to tell the Hack tools about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
The easiest way to do this is to download this folder and put it somewhere in your project. I put it in a hhi folder in the base of my project. The files in there tell Hack about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
Most of them don't have type hints, which can lead to Hack thinking the return type of everything is mixed instead of the actual return, that is actually correct in most cases as, for example, str_replace can return either a string or a bool. However, it does stop the "unbound name" errors, which is the main reason for adding them.
I am wondering if there is a way to ignore certain TypeScript errors upon compilation?
I basically have the same issues most people with large projects have around using the this keyword, and I don't want to put all my classes methods into the constructor.
So I have got an example like so:
TypeScript Example
Which seems to create perfectly valid JS and allows me to get around the this keyword issue, however as you can see in the example the typescript compiler tells me that I cannot compile that code as the keyword this is not valid within that scope. However I don't see why it is an error as it produces okay code.
So is there a way to tell it to ignore certain errors? I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
== Edit ==
(Do not read unless you care about context of this question and partial rant)
Just to add some context to all this to show that I'm not just some nut-job (I am sure a lot of you will still think I am) and that I have some good reasons why I want to be able to allow these errors to go through.
Here are some previous questions I have made which highlight some major problems (imo) with TypeScript current this implementation.
Using lawnchair with Typescript
Issue with child scoping of this in Typescript
https://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/429350 (And some comments I make down the bottom)
The underlying problem I have is that I need to guarantee that all logic is within a consistent scope, I need to be able to access things within knockout, jQuery etc and the local instance of a class. I used to do this with the var self = this; within the class declaration in JavaScript and worked great. As mentioned in some of these previous questions I cannot do that now, so the only way I can guarantee the scope is to use lambda methods, and the only way I can define one of these as a method within a class is within the constructor, and this part is HEAVILY down to personal preference, but I find it horrific that people seem to think that using that syntax is classed as a recommended pattern and not just a work around.
I know TypeScript is in alpha phase and a lot will change, and I HOPE so much that we get some nicer way to deal with this but currently I either make everything a huge mess just to get typescript working (and this is within Hundreds of files which I'm migrating over to TypeScript ) or I just make the call that I know better than the compiler in this case (VERY DANGEROUS I KNOW) so I can keep my code nice and hopefully when a better pattern comes out for handling this I can migrate it then.
Also just on a side note I know a lot of people are loving the fact that TypeScript is embracing and trying to stay as close to the new JavaScript features and known syntax as possible which is great, but typescript is NOT the next version of JavaScript so I don't see a problem with adding some syntactic sugar to the language as people who want to use the latest and greatest official JavaScript implementation can still do so.
The author's specific issue with this seems to be solved but the question is posed about ignoring errors, and for those who end up here looking how to ignore errors:
If properly fixing the error or using more decent workarounds like already suggested here are not an option, as of TypeScript 2.6 (released on Oct 31, 2017), now there is a way to ignore all errors from a specific line using // #ts-ignore comments before the target line.
The mendtioned documentation is succinct enough, but to recap:
// #ts-ignore
const s : string = false
disables error reporting for this line.
However, this should only be used as a last resort when fixing the error or using hacks like (x as any) is much more trouble than losing all type checking for a line.
As for specifying certain errors, the current (mid-2018) state is discussed here, in Design Meeting Notes (2/16/2018) and further comments, which is basically
"no conclusion yet"
and strong opposition to introducing this fine tuning.
I think your question as posed is an XY problem. What you're going for is how can I ensure that some of my class methods are guaranteed to have a correct this context?
For that problem, I would propose this solution:
class LambdaMethods {
constructor(private message: string) {
this.DoSomething = this.DoSomething.bind(this);
}
public DoSomething() {
alert(this.message);
}
}
This has several benefits.
First, you're being explicit about what's going on. Most programmers are probably not going to understand the subtle semantics about what the difference between the member and method syntax are in terms of codegen.
Second, it makes it very clear, from looking at the constructor, which methods are going to have a guaranteed this context. Critically, from a performance, perspective, you don't want to write all your methods this way, just the ones that absolutely need it.
Finally, it preserves the OOP semantics of the class. You'll actually be able to use super.DoSomething from a derived class implementation of DoSomething.
I'm sure you're aware of the standard form of defining a function without the arrow notation. There's another TypeScript expression that generates the exact same code but without the compile error:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
public DoSomething: () => void;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
this.DoSomething = () => { alert(this.message); };
}
}
So why is this legal and the other one isn't? Well according to the spec: an arrow function expression preserves the this of its enclosing context. So it preserves the meaning of this from the scope it was declared. But declaring a function at the class level this doesn't actually have a meaning.
Here's an example that's wrong for the exact same reason that might be more clear:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
}
var a = this.message; // can't do this
}
The way that initializer works by being combined with the constructor is an implementation detail that can't be relied upon. It could change.
I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
One of the high-level goals (that I love) in TypeScript is to extend the JavaScript language and work with it, not fight it. How this operates is tricky but worth learning.