How to create field variable automatically when I create method used that field. I've create template like this:
void $METHOD_NAME$() {
$FIELD_NAME$ = true;
}
when I type field name (e.g. mState) in method will create field as:
private boolean mState = false;
Hope someone help. Sorry my bad.
Given the screenshot of your template, you can also create a field with the following live template:
private boolean $param$ = false;
#Override
public void onBackPressed() {
if ($param$) super.onBackPressed();
android.widget.Toast.makeText(this, "$message$",
android.widget.Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
$param$ = true;
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
$param$ = false;
}
}, 100);
}
Where $param$ and $message$ are regular variables without anything special.
However, like I said in the comment on your question, I suggest to split it up in several smaller templates.
Consider to split it up in:
field + method with just:
private boolean $param$ = false;
#Override
public void onBackPressed() {
if ($param$) super.onBackPressed();
$param$ = true;
}
Then create a template for the message:
android.widget.Toast.makeText(this, "$message$", android.widget.Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
And last but not least, create a template for the postDelayed:
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
$END$
}
}, $delay$);
Note: the $delay$ as a bonus you can even give it a default value or create a list of predefined values for ease of use.
Note2: Instead of $param$ = false; I've replaced it with $END$. This will position your cursor here once you've selected the delay. Now you can type mState = false manually here, or whatever code you need in the context at that moment. This makes the template much more flexible and easier to use.
PS. I suppose you want to call super.onBackPressed() only when the value is false (on the first invocation). In that case use if (!$param$) instead.
// Update:
In order to group the newly added field with the other fields and not halfway somewhere in your class between other methods, rearrange the code
via the menu with: Code -> rearrange code.
To customise this, check your arrangement settings under: settings -> code style -> <language> -> arrangement
Related
I have a Trade class which contains a property currentPrice, which downloads price data from a website using getPricedata() method. The Trade object will show up as a table row in TableView. Now, my task: is to
use the getPricedata() method to grab data from internet, populate the currentPrice cell, whenever the object is created.
relaunch the getPricedata() method to every 1 minute after the object has been created and update table cell.
Below is the basic structure of my code. But I have no idea how to implement this ?
Which package do I need ? Task ? Service ? ScheduledService ?
public class Trade{
private DoubleProperty currentPrice;
// need thread here
public double getPricedata(){
.......
}
}
Use a ScheduledService<Number>, whose Task<Number>'s call() method retrieves and returns the value. Then you can either register an onSucceeded handler with the service, or just bind the Trade's currentPrice to service.lastValue(). Call setPeriod(..) on the service (once) to configure it to run every minute.
Since the currentPrice is being set from the service, you should only expose a ReadOnlyDoubleProperty from your Trade class (otherwise you might try to call currentPriceProperty().set(...) or setCurrentPrice(...), which would fail as it's bound).
I would do something like
public class Trade {
private final ReadOnlyDoubleWrapper currentPrice ;
private final ScheduledService<Number> priceService = new ScheduledService<Number>() {
#Override
public Task<Number> createTask() {
return new Task<Number>() {
#Override
public Number call() {
return getPriceData();
}
};
}
};
public Trade() {
priceService.setPeriod(Duration.minutes(1));
// in case of errors running service:
priceService.setOnFailed(e -> priceService.getException().printStackTrace());
currentPrice = new ReadOnlyDoubleWrapper(0);
currentPrice.bind(priceService.lastValueProperty());
startMonitoring();
}
public final void startMonitoring() {
priceService.restart();
}
public final void stopMonitoring() {
priceService.cancel();
}
public ReadOnlyDoubleProperty currentPriceProperty() {
return currentPrice.getReadOnlyProperty();
}
public final double getCurrentPrice() {
return currentPriceProperty().get();
}
private double getPriceData() {
// do actual retrieval work here...
}
}
(Code just typed in here without testing, but it should give you the idea.)
I have method
public override void InitializeRow(object sender, InitializeRowEventArgs e)
{
if (!e.ReInitialize)
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
AfterInitializeRow(sender, e);
});
}
public override void AfterInitializeRow(object sender, InitializeRowEventArgs e)
{
foreach (UltraGridColumn ugc in e.Row.Band.Columns)
{
if (IsNumeric(ugc.Key))
{
e.Row.Cells[ugc].DroppedDown = true;
e.Row.Cells[ugc].ValueList = “Some value”;
e.Row.Cells[ugc].SetValue(e.Row.Cells[ugc.Key].Value, false);
e.Row.Cells[ugc].Style = Infragistics.Win.UltraWinGrid.ColumnStyle.DropDownList;
}
}
}
But its Giving error at e.Row.Cells[ugc].DroppedDown = true;
I learned that only Main thread can update the UI.
But is it possible that while updating the DroppedDown only it switch to main thread. Bcoz more than 1000’s rows are initialized in this way making the load of Grid very slow. So I want to do some kind of parallelism in this process.
In any function in your Form or UserControl, you can use the following type of code:
public void SetText(string text)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
BeginInvoke(new Action<string>(SetText), text);
}
else
{
label1.Text = text;
}
}
label1 would be the control to update in this case.
This will make sure that you invoke the function on the UI-thread.
You should still be careful with syncrhonization, though, but simply updating your UI from another thread can be easily done like that.
The answer to this question is that you shouldn't be using threading in the InitialzieRow event to set or even access properties on the grid or its related objects.
What you should do instead is look for ways to optimize what you are doing in this method first. For example why are you setting the value of a cell to the value it already has, this line of code should be able to be removed without impacting behavior.
Also all of the logic provided is only based on the column key so if the column has a consistent set of values, you could set the ValueList on the column in InitializeLayout instead of using InitializeRow.
I cannot get Undo and Redo to behave correctly when using a dialog.
I have a simple model with a property indicating the state of the object(running, paused, stopped) which can be altered via a dialog. What happens is that I get actions that seems to do nothing in my undo queue or undo restores the object to an intermediate state.
The model object is registered with memento in the constructor. The dialog has three radio buttons each representing one of the three different states. Each radio button is bind to a command each. Each command performs a change of the property. I have tried two different approaches, either each command sets the property directly in the object or each command sets an instance variable for the view model when called and then I use the Saving event to modify the object.
If using the first approach each property change is put on the Undo queue if the user clicks on more than just one radiobutton before clicking Ok in the dialog. Tried to solve that by wrapping the whole dialog into a batch but that results in undoing the state change the object is restored to the state it had before the final one, i.e. if the property was set to stopped before the dialog opened and the user pressed the pause radiobutton, then start one and finally Ok, undo will set the property to paused instead of the expected stopped.
If using the second approach the user opens the dialog, change the state to paused, click Ok in the dialog the undo/redo behaves as expected but if the dialog is opened again and Cancel is chosen one more action is added to the Undo queue, i.e. the user has to click Undo twice to get back to the initial stopped-state.
So my question is how should this be correctly implemented to get the expected behaviour; that each dialog interaction can be undone and not every interaction in the dialog?
Here is the code for the ViewModel:
namespace UndoRedoTest.ViewModels
{
using Catel.Data;
using Catel.MVVM;
public class StartStopViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
Machine.MachineState _state;
public StartStopViewModel(Machine controlledMachine)
{
ControlledMachine = controlledMachine;
_state = controlledMachine.State;
StartMachine = new Command(OnStartMachineExecute);
PauseMachine = new Command(OnPauseMachineExecute);
StopMachine = new Command(OnStopMachineExecute);
Saving += StartStopViewModel_Saving;
}
void StartStopViewModel_Saving(object sender, SavingEventArgs e)
{
ControlledMachine.State = _state;
}
[Model]
public Machine ControlledMachine
{
get { return GetValue<Machine>(ControlledMachineProperty); }
private set { SetValue(ControlledMachineProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly PropertyData ControlledMachineProperty = RegisterProperty("ControlledMachine", typeof(Machine));
public override string Title { get { return "Set Machine state"; } }
public Command StartMachine { get; private set; }
public Command PauseMachine { get; private set; }
public Command StopMachine { get; private set; }
private void OnStartMachineExecute()
{
_state = Machine.MachineState.RUNNING;
//ControlledMachine.SecondState = Machine.MachineState.RUNNING;
}
private void OnPauseMachineExecute()
{
_state = Machine.MachineState.PAUSED;
//ControlledMachine.SecondState = Machine.MachineState.PAUSED;
}
private void OnStopMachineExecute()
{
_state = Machine.MachineState.STOPPED;
//ControlledMachine.SecondState = Machine.MachineState.STOPPED;
}
}
}
First of all, don't subscribe to the Saving event but simply override the Save() method. Note that Catel handles the model state for you when you decorate a model with the ModelAttribute. Therefore you need to get the prestate and poststate of the dialog and then push the result set into a batch.
For example, I would create extension methods for the object class (or model class) like this:
public static Dictionary<string, object> GetProperties(this IModel model)
{
// todo: return properties
}
Then you do this in the Initialize and in the Save method and you would have 2 sets of properties (pre state and post state). Now you have that, it's easy to calculate the differences:
public static Dictionary<string, object> GetChangedProperties(Dictionary<string, object> preState, Dictionary<string, object> postState)
{
// todo: calculate difference
}
Now you have the difference, you can create a memento batch and it would restore the exact state as you expected.
ps. it would be great if you could put this into a blog post once done or create a PR with this feature
I need a custom binding and I know when and where but I don't know how I can do it. This is the relation of the view in my custom binding. Think about the *Views like controls.
I have the connections from ViewModel->ContainerView->FirstView but I can't connect it with the TableView. To connect the ContainerView to FirstView I did a custom binding (in one direction for now). And in the setvalue method I call the firstview's method SetBinding (where I want to do the binding)
I tried a few option but nothing happens, the last one looks like this:
public GolferList CurrentGolferList { get; set; }
public void SetBinding(GolferList golferList){
this.CurrentGolferList = golferList;
TableSource = new TableSourcePlayers(TableViewPlayers);
var bindingDescription = new[]{
new MvxBindingDescription {TargetName = "ItemsSource",SourcePropertyPath = "CurrentGolferList"} ,
};
Binder.Bind(this,TableSource, bindingDescription);
TableViewPlayers.Source = TableSource;
TableViewPlayers.ReloadData();
}
I would be grateful if you could tell me another way to handle it.
Update:
I followed Stuart's link and now it works fine, thanks a lot Stuart!
Actually, in my scheme the TableView is a MvxSimpleBindableTableViewSource and I want to bind the data there. So in order to make it work, I used the code below (SetBinding needs some external refactor):
private List<IMvxUpdateableBinding> bindings;
private string BindingText = "{'ItemsSource':{'Path':'CurrentGolfers'}}";
public object DataContext {
get { return dataContext; }
set { dataContext = value;
if (bindings == null)
bindings = this.GetService<IMvxBinder>().Bind(dataContext, TableSource, BindingText).ToList();
else
bindings.ForEach(b => b.DataContext = dataContext);
}
}
public void SetBinding(GolferList golferList){
this.DataContext = PlayViewModel;
tableView.Source = TableSource;
tableView.ReloadData();
}
Note that BindingText points to the table, not to the view itself.
Update 2
Now in V3 it's a bit different. First, the view must implement IMvxBindable and this members:
public object DataContext
{
get { return BindingContext.DataContext; }
set { BindingContext.DataContext = value; }
}
public IMvxBindingContext BindingContext { get; set; }
(Don't forget dispose calling BindingContext.ClearAllBindings() and also call to CreateBindingContext() in the viewload )
And then you'll be able to bind in your class. In my case:
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<FirstPlayViewController, PlayViewModel>();
set.Bind(source).To(vm => vm.CurrentGolfers).Apply(); //I love the new fluent api :)
I think what you want to do is actual a data-bound View, rather than a custom binding.
This is covered in this question - Custom bindable control in a MvvmCross Touch project
Basically what you need to do is to add a collection of 'Bindings' and the 'DataContext' property to your FirstView.
If you do that then you should be able to databind (to DataContext) within FirstView just like you do within any normal MvvmCross view.
Note - this will be much easier to do in v3 as we've added a 'BindingContext' object to assist with exactly this type of operation
I've installed excel module in order to generate reports from datas recorded by my application into database.
It works fine : i can create report simply by clicking on a link into my main page and render into excel template.
But i'd rather generate excel file periodically (using a job) and save it into a shared folder, and that without any human action (so not by clicking on a link).
It's like I want to trigger the associated controller to render into my template automatically.
Does anyone got any tips on it for me?
So the problem is you can't pass some parameters into the job, or...?
Using something like this just doesn't work?
#On("0 45 4-23 ? * MON-FRI")
public class ExcelJob extends Job {
public void doJob() {
// generate excel
}
}
I wrote my own Excel generator using JExcel, and I use it for scheduled generation without a problem. It also doesn't require a template, because the report structure is derived from annotations. This is roughly 20 lines of code - you may want to try it for yourself.
This is really rough and lacks good user feedback, but gives you the idea...
Excel generator - not Play-specific in any way
public class ExcelGenerator
{
public void generateReport(Function successCallback,
Function failureCallback)
{
try
{
byte[] report = // generate your report somehow
successCallback.execute(report);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
failureCallback.execute(e.getMessage());
}
}
}
A function interface for callbacks (very basic)
public interface Function
{
public void execute(Object... args);
}
Your Play controller
public class MyController extends Controller
{
public static void index()
{
render();
}
public static void createReport()
{
Function failureCallback = new Function()
{
public void execute(Object... args)
{
flash.error(args[0]);
indxe();
}
};
Function successCallback = new Function()
{
public void execute(Object... args)
{
renderBinary((byte[])args[0]);
}
};
ExcelGenerator excelGenerator = new ExcelGenerator();
excelGenerator.generateReport(successCallback,
failureCallback);
}
}
Finally, re-use the ExcelGenerator from your job
public class MyJob extends Job
{
public void doJob()
{
Function failureCallback = new Function()
{
public void execute(Object... args)
{
Logger.error(args[0]);
}
}
Function successCallback = new Function()
{
public void execute(Object... args)
{
byte[] report = (byte[])args[0];
// write report to disk
}
}
ExcelGenerator excelGenerator = new ExcelGenerator();
excelGenerator.generateReport(successCallback,
failureCallback);
}
}
You'll still need to write your own report generator, or refactor the existing excel module to provide what you need.
So if you want to run and manage several jobs you can do something like this
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
SendingMessageJob sendingMessageJob = new SendingMessageJob();
promises.add(sendingMessageJob.now());
}
boolean allDone = false;
while (!allDone) {
allDone = true;
for (F.Promise promise : promises) {
if (!promise.isDone()) {
allDone = false;
break;
}
}
}
// when arrive here all jobs have finished their process
You can check the Play documentation, specifically the section on jobs, where you'll see examples on how to create automatically triggered methods. This should solve your issue.
EDIT (update on comment):
You can manually trigger a job, do this:
new MyExcelGeneratorJob().doJob();
Thing is, Play is stateless, so the job should use data from the database. Instead of trying to pass parameters from your request into the Job (won't work) try to store that data in a staging area in the database that the job loads and processes to generate the excel.