Switching on String Value Yields Unexpected Results in Groovy - string

I am working in a groovy/grails set up and am having some trouble trying to execute a switch statement on a String value.
Basically, I am looping through the attribute names in a webservice response to see if they match pre-defined mappings that are configured on a per user basis. If they have established a mapping on that field, I pull the value out of the response and use it elsewhere.
The code looks something like this:
switch(attributeName)
{
case {attributeName} :
log.info("Currently switching on value... ${attributeName}")
case user.getFirstNameMapping():
model.user.userInfo.firstName = attributeValue
break
case user.getLastNameMapping():
model.user.userInfo.lastName = attributeValue
break
case user.getAuthenticationKeyMapping():
model.authenticationValue = attributeValue
break
case user.getEmailMapping():
model.email = attributeValue.toLowerCase()
break
}
The value being switched on (attributeName) is of type String, and the getter methods for the user instance also return type String.
Based on my research and understanding of the Groovy language, switching on an Object such as a String should end up using String.equals() to make the comparison. The result, however, is that it is matching on the user.getFirstNameMapping() case every time, and repeatedly overwriting the value in the model; therefore, the last value that comes back in the response is what ends up saved, and none of the other values are saved.
What's interesting is that if I use an if/else structure and do something like this:
if(attributeName.equals(user.getFirstNameMapping())
{
...
}
It works fine every time. I've verified through logging that it's not something silly like extra whitespace or a capitalization issue. I've also tried changing things around to run the switch by default and explicitly compare the attributeName in the case like this:
switch(true)
{
case {attributeName} :
log.info("Currently switching on value... ${attributeName}")
case {user.getFirstNameMapping().equals(attributeName)}:
model.user.userInfo.firstName = attributeValue
break
case {user.getLastNameMapping().equals(attributeName)}:
model.user.userInfo.lastName = attributeValue
break
case {user.getAuthenticationKeyMapping().equals(attributeName)}:
model.authenticationValue = attributeValue
break
case {user.getEmailMapping().equals(attributeName)}:
model.email = attributeValue.toLowerCase()
break
}
And it still fails to meet my expectations in the exact same way. So, I'm wondering why this is the behavior when the switch statement should simply be using .equals() to compare the strings, and when I explicitly compare them in an if/else using .equals(), it works as expected.

The issue is in your switch case.
Have a look here :-
case {attributeName} :
log.info("Currently switching on value... ${attributeName}")
case user.getFirstNameMapping():
model.user.userInfo.firstName = attributeValue
break
As you can see your these two cases will run every time because the switch condition is :-
switch(attributeName)
So the first one will get match and will run until it encounters break; which is at after case 2 i.e. case user.getFirstNameMapping(): so i would suggest you to print the value of {attributeName} before the swtich starts.
Hope that will help you.
Thanks

I don't know exactly what's your issue, but the case statement works just fine, even with methods. See my example
String something = "Foo"
class User {
String firstName
String lastName
}
User u = new User(firstName: 'Something', lastName:'Foo')
switch(something) {
case u.getFirstName():
println "firstName: ${u.firstName}"
break;
case u.getLastName():
println "lastName: ${u.lastName}"
break;
default:
println "nothing..."
}
This code will print lastName as expected.
​

Related

How to check if the first variable passed into a method is a string. Perl

I have no idea how to check for this. My method(if condition in method) should only work (execute) if the first argument passed in is a string. I know how to check other types, but I can't seem to find anything for checking for a string.
For a hash I would do something like;
if(ref eq 'HASH') {...}
If someone could provide a simple example I'm sure I would be able to apply it to what I'm doing. I will put up the code for the method and an explanation for the whole operational details of the method if needed.
Added Information
This is a method for handling different types of errors in the software, here are the 3 possible input formats:
$class->new("error string message")
$class->new("error string message", code => "UNABLE_TO_PING_SWITCH_ERROR")
$class->new("error string message", code => "UNABLE_TO_PING_SWITCH_ERROR", switch_ip => $ip3, timeout => $timeout)
There will always be an error message string first.
With the 1st case there is also a hashref to an error hash structure that is located in a library,
this method new will go into a template processing if the word "code" exists as an arg. where the longer detailed error message is constructed. (I already have the logic for this).
But I have to add logic so that the error message string is added to the hash, so the output is one hash, and not strings.
The second case is very similar to the first, where there are parameters eg. switch_ip , which are inserted into the string using a similar template processing logic, (already have this too).
So I think the first and second cases can be handled in the same way, but I'm not sure, so separated them in this question.
The last case is just can error message string by itself, which at the minute I just insert it into a one key message hash { message => "error string}.
So after all that how should I be checking or dividing up these error cases, At the minute my idea for the ones with code , is to dump the arguments into a hash and just use something like:
if(exists($param{code}) { doTemplateProcess()...}
I need to ensure that there is a string passed in first though. Which was my original question. Does any of my context information help? I hope I didn't go off the topic of my question, if so I'll open this a new question. Thanks.
Error hash - located in Type.pm
use constant ERROR_CODE => {
UNABLE_TO_PING_SWITCH_ERROR => {
category => 'Connection Error:',
template => 'Could not ping switch %s in %s minutes',
tt => {template => 'disabled'},
fatal => 1,
wiki_page => www.error-solution.com/,
},
}
From comments:
These will be called in the software's code like so
ASC::Builder::Error->new(
"Phase x this occured because y was happening:",
code => UNABLE_TO_PING_SWITCH_ERROR,
switch_ip => $ip3,
timeout => 30,
);
Putting the wisdom of your particular problem aside and channeling Jeff Foxworthy:
If you have a scalar and it's not a reference, you might have a string.
If your non-reference scalar doesn't look like a number, it might be a string.
If your non-reference scalar looks like a number, it can still be a string.
If your non-reference scalar has a different string and number value, it might be a dualvar.
You know that your argument list is just that: a list. A list is a collection of scalar values. A scalar can be a reference or not a reference. I think you're looking for the not a reference case:
die "You can't do that" if ref $first_argument;
Past that, you'd have to do fancier things to determine if it's the sort of value that you want. This might also mean that you reject objects that pretend to be strings through overloading and whatnot.
Perhaps you can make the first argument part of the key-value pairs that you pass. You can then access that key to extract the value and delete it before you use the remaining pairs.
You may easily check only whether the error string is a simple scalar value or a reference. You would do that with ref, but you must consider what you want to do if the first parameter isn't a string
You should write your constructor in the ASC::Builder::Error package along these lines
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my ($error, %options) = #_;
die if ref $error;
bless { string => $error }, $class;
}
This example simply dies, and so kills the program, if it is called with anything other than a simple string or number as the first parameter
You may call it as
ASC::Builder::Error->new('error')
or
ASC::Builder::Error->new(42)
and all will be well. If you try
ASC::Builder::Error->new('message', 'code')
then you will see a warning
Odd number of elements in hash assignment
And you may make that warning fatal
If there is anything more then you should explain
Supporting all of the following is simple:
$class->new("s")
$class->new("s", code => "s")
$class->new("s", code => "s", switch_ip => "s", timeout => "s")
All you need is the following:
sub new {
my ($class, $msg, %opts) = #_;
...
}
You can checks such as the following to examine what the called provided:
if (exists($opts{code}))
if (defined($opts{code}))
if ($opts{code})
Despite saying that the string will always be provided, you now ask how to check if was provided. As such, you are probably trying to perform validation rather than polymorphism. You shouldn't waste your time doing this.
Let's look at the hash reference example you gave. ref($arg) eq 'HASH' is wrong. That returns false for some hash references, and it returns false for some things that act like a reference to a hash. The following is a more proper check:
eval { %$arg; 1 }
The equivalent for strings would be the following:
eval { "$arg"; 1 }
Unfortunately, it will always return true! Every value can act as a string. That means the best thing you can do is simply to check if any argument is provided.
use Carp qw( croak );
croak("usage") if !#_;
It's rare for Perl subs to perform argument validation. Not only is it tricky, it's also expensive. It also provides very little benefits. Bad or missing arguments usually results in exceptions or warnings shortly after.
You might see suggestions to use croak("usage") if ref($arg); (or worse, die if ref($arg);), but keep in mind that those will cause the rejection of perfectly fine objects that overload stringification (which is somewhat common), and they will fail to detect the problem with ASC::Builder::Error->new(code => ...) because code produces a string. Again, performing type-based argument validation is an expensive and buggy practice in Perl.

Processing Split (server)

I am doing 2player game and when I get informations from server, it's in format "topic;arg1;arg2" so if I am sending positions it's "PlayerPos;x;y".
I then use split method with character ";".
But then... I even tried to write it on screen "PlayerPos" was written right, but it cannot be gained through if.
This is how I send info on server:
server.write("PlayerPos;"+player1.x+";"+player1.y);
And how I accept it on client:
String Get=client.readString();
String [] Getted = split(Get, ';');
fill(0);
text(Get,20,20);
text(Getted[0],20,40);
if(Getted[0]=="PlayerPos"){
text("HERE",20,100);
player1.x=parseInt(Getted[1]);
player1.x=parseInt(Getted[2]);
}
It writes me "PlayerPos;200;200" on screen, even "PlayerPos" under it. But it never writes "HERE" and it never makes it into the if.
Where is my mistake?
Don't use == when comparing String values. Use the equals() function instead:
if(Getted[0].equals("PlayerPos")){
From the Processing reference:
To compare the contents of two Strings, use the equals() method, as in if (a.equals(b)), instead of if (a == b). A String is an Object, so comparing them with the == operator only compares whether both Strings are stored in the same memory location. Using the equals() method will ensure that the actual contents are compared. (The troubleshooting reference has a longer explanation.)

Can switch use String.contains?

I'm trying to make this work, and it seems not to be accepted. Is there any fix, or workaround to it?
switch(email){
case (email.contains('acceptall')):
log.info email
break
default:
log.info "Doesn't work!"
}
I'm using groovy for a script in SoapUI
Use a regex, roughly:
switch (email) {
case ~/.*acceptall.*/:
log.info(email)
break;
default:
log.info("Doesn't work!")
}
http://groovy.codehaus.org/Logical+Branching#LogicalBranching-switchstatement
Switch supports the following kinds of comparisons
Class case values matches if the switchValue is an instanceof the
class
Regular expression case value matches if the string of the
switch
Value matches the regex Collection case value matches if the
switch
Value is contained in the collection. This also includes ranges
too (since they are Lists)
if none of the above are used then the case
value matches if the case value equals the switch value
you almost got it right, just need to turn it into a closure e.g.
switch (email) {
case { it.contains('acceptall') }:
log.info(email)
break;
default:
log.info("Doesn't work!")
}

Groovy - How can I compare part of a list to a string

I have a list which contains two types of text. One type is used for authorization while other type is used for all other purposes.
The type used for authorization always uses the same text + some code after it.
I would like to compare content of these two types of text and separate them based on content.
My idea is to look for pattern in authorization type and if it matches the pattern then this would be marked as authorization, otherwise it would be marked as "other".
I researched about comparison of patterns in Groovy, but all variations I tried did not work for me. Here is the part which should do the comparison, I am obviously doing something wrong but I don't know what.
jdbcOperations.queryForList(sql).collect { row ->
if(assert (row['MSG'] ==~ /token/)){
mark as authorization
}
else{
mark as other
}
}
Sorry for the vague code, I can not share more than this.
I think you just missing the match for the rest of the text, since you are looking only for the first part to match.
assert ("abc" ==~ /abc/) == true
assert ("abcdefg" ==~ /abc/) == false
assert ("abcdefg" ==~ /abc(.*)/) == true // <--- This can also be made more complicated

What do empty square brackets after a variable name mean in Groovy?

I'm fairly new to groovy, looking at some existing code, and I see this:
def timestamp = event.timestamp[]
I don't understand what the empty square brackets are doing on this line. Note that the timestamp being def'd here should receive a long value.
In this code, event is defined somewhere else in our huge code base, so I'm not sure what it is. I thought it was a map, but when I wrote some separate test code using this notation on a map, the square brackets result in an empty value being assigned to timestamp. In the code above, however, the brackets are necessary to get correct (non-null) values.
Some quick Googling didn't help much (hard to search on "[]").
EDIT: Turns out event and event.timestamp are both zero.core.groovysupport.GCAccessor objects, and as the answer below says, the [] must be calling getAt() on these objects and returning a value (in this case, a long).
The square brackets will invoke the underlying getAt(Object) method of that object, so that line is probably invoking that one.
I made a small script:
class A {
def getAt(p) {
println "getAt: $p"
p
}
}
def a = new A()
b = a[]
println b.getClass()
And it returned the value passed as a parameter. In this case, an ArrayList. Maybe that timestamp object has some metaprogramming on it. What does def timestamp contains after running the code?
Also check your groovy version.
Empty list, found this. Somewhat related/possibly helpful question here.
Not at a computer, but that looks like it's calling the method event.timestamp and passing an empty list as a parameter.
The same as:
def timestamp = event.timestamp( [] )

Resources