With ValueTuple in C# 7, it is now possible to write methods and properties that return or consume composite objects without explicitly declaring a type. These named tuples can however be potentially confusing when no documentation is provided.
As the primary and probably most convenient way of documenting libraries is by using XML documentation, is there any way using XML documentation to provide a description of the variables in a named tuple?
I know the obvious solution is to declare a type and document it accordingly. However, granted that due to some 'reasons' that cannot be done, is it possible to XML document the data members in a ValueTuple?
NB: A similar question was asked before the advent of the ValueTuple.
C# has no special syntax for documenting named elements of a tuple, you will have to use the normal <returns> and <param> elements and explain in words what each named element contains.
Though there is a proposal for adding this capability to the language.
Related
I have a requirement to display a drop down menu for a String type in Hybris Management Console, restricting the value to some specific values.
As suggested in several forums, I tried to create this entry as an enumeration type but characters like '-' are to be allowed in the enumeration values, as this column receives some specific values which comprise of '-'.
How do I solve this issue?
The people advising you probably didn't understand your requirements. As such, an enumeration type is clearly not appropriate in this case. Consider the alternatives. Is there a Map Type available? What other type might allow you to achieve your goal?
Actually, you could use the hybris Enumeration. In hybris Enum Types have a code and a name. The code is the unique representation for this enum and cannot contain a "-". The name however is a localized representation of that value and can include every character your database is able to store. Have a look here:
https://help.hybris.com/6.5.0/hcd/8c895989866910148d6a802f06651702.html
Additionally, hybris enables you to dynamically create new enumeration values, which is kind of nice.
I Googled this Question but still i'm unable to find the best difference for the Simple XSD (XML Schema Definition) Element and Complex XSD Element.
Any guidance would be highly appreciated.
I have no idea, why I answer this. But...
To summarize,
simple types can only have content directly contained between the element’s opening and closing tags. They cannot have attributes or child elements.
complex types can have attributes, can contain other elements, can contain a mixture of elements and text, etc etc.
One is a single value and the other a compound value.
I created a plain Groovy class (i.e Person class)with some properties. Now I want to get those declared attributes (which I've defined in my class) with their order, but I don't know how to do it.
I've tried to use Person.metaClass.getProperties() but it retrieves not only declared properties but also built-in Groovy ones.
Could you please help me on this: just get declared properties by its order when declaring.
Thank you so much!
I can't see a use case, but the compiler could reorder all fields declaration while creating bytecode. I'm pretty sure ordering is not a constraint on fields though it should mostly be the case for not modified/enhanced class
As per the JVM spec, generated fields should be marked SYNTHETIC (like generated methods) in the bytecode, so you can test with :
Person.getDeclaredFields().grep { !it.synthetic }
and filter the base Groovy fields like ClassInfo,metaClass and others beginning by __timestamp
But I'm not a specialist, there could be another way I don't think of
There was a question about this on the mailing list back in February of this year
The answer is, no. There is no way to get properties in the order they are declared in the class without doing some extra work.
You could parse the source file for the class, and generate an ordered list of property names from that
You could write a custom annotation, and annotate the fields with this annotation ie: #Order(1) String prop
You could make all of the classes where this matters implement an interface which forces them to have a method that returns the names of the properties in order.
Other than that, you probably want to have a re-think :-(
I'm in the middle of trying to copy a custom content type from one web to another. I've googled around and found some examples that use FieldLinks and Fields. I'm kind of lost as to which one to use, since when I get the FieldLinks from my source web, I get 3 fields; while retrieving from Fields only returned me 2 fields... the custom field is missing. I'm pretty darn sure that I've added the fields at the proper level since I did it via the interface. But when retrieving it using code... the numbers just don't add up.
So besides from that strange problem, I want to know what is the difference between FieldLinks and Fields, and when dealing with them in Content Types (programmatically) which one should I use?
Thanks.
SPFields are fields themselves, while SPFieldLinks are references to the fields. This is a good read that will explain things in detail. In general practice, it is safer to use SPFieldLinks when you are working on the actual content type definition. However, I'll give a quick summary here.
Lists and Webs contain the actual fields with field data. A content type, on the other hand, only holds Field Reference, which simply points at the corresponding field in the list or web. This gets a bit confusing, because content types have both an SPFieldLinkCollection and an SPFieldCollection.
The SPFieldLinkCollection is used in the actual definition of the content type, and is what you would want to use in your situation of copying a content type from one web to another. SPFieldLinks correspond to the actual elements in the XML Schema for a content type.
Comparatively, when you call on a content type's SPFieldCollection and retrieve a Field from it, what is actually happening is that the content type is checking the corresponding field reference, and then looking up in the list/web to get the actual field. Basically, think of the SPFieldCollection in the same way a lookup works: it is worthless without both the lookup value and the lookup source.
Suppose we have a stylesheet which pulls in metadata using the key() function. In other words we have instance documents like this:
<items>
<item type="some_type"/>
<item type="another_type"/>
</items>
and a table of additional data we would like to associate with items during processing:
<item-meta>
<item type="some_type" meta="foo"/>
<item type="another_type" meta="bar"/>
<item type="yet_another_type" meta="baz"/>
</item-meta>
Finally, suppose we want to do schema validation on the instance document, restricting the type attributes to the set of types which occur in item-meta. So in the schema we want to use key/keyref instead of restriction/enumeration. This is because using restriction/enumeration will require making a separate list of valid type attributes.
However, it doesn't look like key/keyref will actually work. Having tried it (with MSXML 6.0) it appears the selector of a schema key won't accept the document() function in its xpath argument, so we can't examine the item-meta data, whether it appears in an external file or in the schema file itself. It looks like the only place we can look for keys is the instance document.
So if we really don't want to have a separate list of valid types, we have to do a pre-validation transform, pulling in the item-meta stuff, then do the validation, then do our original transform. That seems overcomplicated for what ought to be a relatively straightforward use of XML schema and stylesheets.
Is there a better way?
Selectors in key/keyref allow only a very restricted xpath syntax. Short, but not completely accurate: The selector must point to a subnode of the element declared.
The full definition of the restricted syntax is -> here.
So, no I don't see a better way, sorry.
BTW: The W3C states that this restriction was made to make life easier on implementers of XML Schema processors. Keep in mind that one of the design goals of XML Schema was to make it possible to process a document in streaming mode. That explains really a lot of the sometimes seemingly random restrictions of XML Schema.
Having thought about it a little more, I came up with the idea of having the stylesheet do that part of the validation. The schema would define the item type as a plain string, and the stylesheet would emit a message and stop processing if it couldn't look up the item type in the item-meta table.
This solution fixes the original problem of having to write down the list of valid types more than once, but it introduces the problem that validation logic is now mixed in with the stylesheet logic. I don't have enough experience with XSD+XSLT to tell whether this new problem is less serious than the old one, but it seems to be more elegant than what I wrote earlier about pulling the item-meta table into each instance document in a pre-validation transform.
You wouldn't need to stop the XSLT with some error. Just let it produce something that the schema won't validate and that points to the original problem like
<error txt="Invalid-Item-Type 'invalid_type'"/>
Apart from that please keep in mind that there are no discussion threads here. The posts may go up and down, so it's better to edit your question accordingly.
Remember, the philosophy here is "One question, and the best answer wins".