I've a simple class with a main() method from which I want to access the script bindings.
class Sample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
binding.variables.each{
println it.key
println it.value
}
}
}
Does the implicit binding variable exist for a simple class such as this or is it only for scripts?
I realize I can pass it into the method / the constructor of the object. But since I'd like to keep this as a pure class file and not a script, I cannot do that.
It's only a property of a Script instance. Look at the source, you'll see that a Binding is only a delegate, used in getProperty or setProperty.
Related
I would like to execute a function (with parameters) through an annotation tag in a groovy script.
If we execute a method in our groovy script with this annotation it would print in the console (stderr) a custom message like:
warning: '<function_name>' is deprecated [[Use '<Deprecated.instead>' instead.][More info: '<Deprecated.more_info>']]
So, I have created a custom annotation like this
public #interface Deprecated {
public String instead() default null
public String more_info() default null
}
The goal is to use it like this:
def new_call() {
//new version of the method
}
#Deprecated(instead="new_call")
def call() {
//do something
}
In my example, it would output like this:
warning: 'call' is deprecated. Use 'new_call' instead.
I saw this post Groovy: How to call annotated methods, it's over 7 years old now but looks good so i'll look deeper.
I saw also Delegate.deprecated but i'm not sure if that's what i want
I'm not sure I am doing right. So if you have any advice or suggestions, I'll be happy to hear you.
Simple AOP Approach
This is very-very basic implementation with groovy out-of the box.
Deprecated Annotation
#Target([ElementType.METHOD])
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#interface Deprecated {
String instead() default 'null'
String more_info() default 'null'
}
Class which should get this functionality
The class has to implement GroovyInterceptable - invokeMethod.
class SomeClass implements GroovyInterceptable {
#Override
def invokeMethod(String name, args) {
DeprecatedInterception.apply(this, name, args)
}
def new_call() {
println('new_call invoked')
}
#Deprecated(instead = 'new_call', more_info = '... the reason')
def depr_call() {
println('depr_call invoked')
}
}
Interception Util
import org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedMethod
class DeprecatedInterception {
static apply(Object owner, String methodName, Object args) {
MetaMethod metaMethod = owner.metaClass.getMetaMethod(methodName, args)
Deprecated d = extractAnnotation(metaMethod)
if (d) {
println("warning: '$methodName' is deprecated. Use '${d.instead()}' instead. More info: '${d.more_info()}'")
}
// handle methods with var-args
metaMethod.isVargsMethod() ?
metaMethod.doMethodInvoke(owner, args) :
metaMethod.invoke(owner, args)
}
static Deprecated extractAnnotation(MetaMethod metaMethod) {
if (metaMethod instanceof CachedMethod) {
metaMethod.getCachedMethod()?.getAnnotation(Deprecated)
} else {
null
}
}
}
Simple Test
Just check that no exceptions/errors..
class TestWarnings {
#Test
void test() {
new SomeClass().with {
new_call()
depr_call()
}
}
}
Output:
new_call invoked
warning: 'depr_call' is deprecated. Use 'new_call' instead. More info: '... the reason'
depr_call invoked
Disclaimer
This should work for most cases, but has some limitations:
will not work for static methods (unless invoked on Object instance)
you have to implement GroovyInterceptable per each class, to apply
you might faced with some side-effects in some groovy syntax or features (at least I've found the issue with vararg methods invocation, but this already fixed)
So this should be tested and potentially improved before widely using for some production projects.
Other options:
Shortly, because implementation might be more complex (not sure, at least I not able to provide some example in a short time), but potentially this is more solid.
Adding AST Transformations.
Use some AOP library.
A simplified version of what I'm trying to do in Groovy:
class Animal {
static def echo() {
println this.name // ie "class.name"
}
}
class Dog extends Animal {
}
class Cat extends Animal {
}
Dog.echo()
Cat.echo()
// Output:
// => Animal
// => Animal
//
// What I want:
// => Dog
// => Cat
I think what I'm asking here is: when I call a static method on an object, and
the static method is defined in the object's superclass, is there a way to obtain
the actual type of the object?
A static method is not defined in the object context, but in the class context. You might get confused by the presence of this in the Groovy static method. However, it's only a syntactic sugar that eventually replaces this.name with Animal.class.name.
If you compile the Animal class from your example with a static compilation enabled, you will see that it compiles to the following Java equivalent (result after decompiling the .class file):
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.GroovyObject;
import groovy.lang.MetaClass;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods;
public class Animal implements GroovyObject {
public Animal() {
MetaClass var1 = this.$getStaticMetaClass();
this.metaClass = var1;
}
public static Object echo() {
DefaultGroovyMethods.println(Animal.class, Animal.class.getName());
return null;
}
}
You can see that the following line in the echo method:
DefaultGroovyMethods.println(Animal.class, Animal.class.getName());
operates directly on the Animal class name. So from the echo method perspective, it doesn't matter how many classes extend it. As long as those classes invoke echo method defined in the Animal class, you will always see Animal printed as a result.
And there is even more than that. If you use the following compiler configuration script:
config.groovy
withConfig(configuration) {
ast(groovy.transform.CompileStatic)
ast(groovy.transform.TypeChecked)
}
and then compile the script (let's call it script.groovy) using this configuration option with the following command:
groovyc --configscript=config.groovy script.groovy
then you will see something like this after decompiling the .class file:
//
// Source code recreated from a .class file by IntelliJ IDEA
// (powered by Fernflower decompiler)
//
import groovy.lang.Binding;
import org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.InvokerHelper;
public class script extends groovy.lang.Script {
public script() {
}
public script(Binding context) {
super(context);
}
public static void main(String... args) {
InvokerHelper.runScript(script.class, args);
}
public Object run() {
Animal.echo();
return Animal.echo();
}
}
You can see that even though you have invoked Dog.echo() and Cat.echo() in your Groovy script, the compiler replaced these calls with the double Animal.echo() invocation. It happened because calling this static method on any other subclass does not make any difference.
Possible solution: applying double dispatch
There is one way to get the expected output - override echo static method in Dog and Cat class. I can assume that your real method may do something more than the exemplary echo method you have shown above, so you might need to call the super echo method from a parent class. But... there are two problems: (1) you can't use super.echo() in the static context, and (2) it doesn't solve the problem, because parent method still operates in the Animal class context.'
To solve this kind of issue you might want to mimic a technique called double dispatch. In short - when we don't have information about the caller in the method that was called, let's allow the caller to pass this information with the method call. Consider the following example:
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class Animal {
// This is a replacement for the previous echo() method - this one knows the animal type from a parameter
protected static void echo(Class<? extends Animal> clazz) {
println clazz.name
}
static void echo() {
echo(Animal)
}
}
#CompileStatic
class Dog extends Animal {
static void echo() {
echo(Dog)
}
}
#CompileStatic
class Cat extends Animal {
static void echo() {
echo(Cat)
}
}
Animal.echo()
Dog.echo()
Cat.echo()
This may sound like a boilerplate solution - it requires implementing echo method in each subclass. However, it encapsulates the echo logic in the method that requires Class<? extends Animal> parameter, so we can let every subclass to introduce their concrete subtype. Of course, this is not a perfect solution. It requires implementing echo method in each subclass, but there is no other alternative way. Another problem is that it doesn't stop you from calling Dog.echo(Animal) which will cause the same effect as calling Animal.echo(). This double dispatch like approach is more like introducing a shorthand version of echo method which uses the common static echo method implementation for simplicity.
I don't know if this kind of approach solves your problem, but maybe it will help you find a final solution.
Is there a way to access global variable, declared in the script, from the static method of the class, declared in the same script?
For example
def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println s
}
}
Because that way it fails with the error
You attempted to reference a variable in the binding or an instance variable from a static context
which is expected though.
There is a related discussion at this question:
Groovy scope - how to access script variable in a method
Related in that both questions refer to using a global variable within a class, but this question differs somewhat in that you are seeking to use a static method which alters how you pass the script instance or binding (2 choices).
Passing the Script's Instance
import groovy.transform.Field
#Field def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method(si) {
return si.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(this) == "12345"
Passing the Script's binding
s = "12345" // NOTE: no 'def'
class MyClass {
static def method(b) {
return b.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(binding) == "12345"
Well, the problem is that in Groovy there is no such thing as a global variable. What is loosely considered a global variable is actually a static property within some class.
For example, if you remove the println line so that the code compiles, you get something like this out of the compiler:
public class script1455567284805 extends groovy.lang.Script {
...
public java.lang.Object run() {
return java.lang.Object s = '12345'
}
...
}
public class MyClass implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject extends java.lang.Object {
...
public static java.lang.Object method() {
// This is where the println would have been.
return null
}
...
}
As you can see, an additional class is created and the the s variable is declared within the method run() of that class. This makes the variable inaccessible to your other class.
Note: Removing the def will not address this issue.
Solution
Your best bet is to place your "global variables" into a class, possibly as static properties, like this:
class Global {
static Object S = "12345"
}
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println Global.S
}
}
You included a variable type with the s variable (by using the def type). In a Groovy script, this is treated as a local variable - and local to the run() method that is generated - which is kind of like a main() class. As a result, the variable is not available in other methods or classes.
If you remove the def you will be able to make use of the s variable.
Here is the Groovy documentation that explains this further.
I have the impression that closures run as the actual class being called (instead of the implementing super class) and thus break when some variables are not visible (e.g. private in the super class).
For example
package comp.ds.GenericTest2
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
this.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
// THIS THROWS groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: accessThisPrivateVariable for class: comp.ds.GenericTest2.ClosureScopeD
b.doSomething("abc")
The last line throws a MissingPropertyException: the child class calls the "add" method of the super class, which executes the "each" closure, which uses the "accessThisPrivateVariable".
I am new to groovy, so I think there must be an easy way to do this, because otherwise it seems that closures completely break the encapsulation of the private implementation done in the super class ... this seems to be a very common need (super class implementation referencing its own private variables)
I am using groovy 2.1.3
I found this to be a good reference describing how Groovy variable scopes work and applies to your situation: Closure in groovy cannot use private field when called from extending class
From the above link, I realized that since you have declared accessThisPrivateVariable as private, Groovy would not auto-generate a getter/setter for the variable. Remember, even in Java, private variables are not accessible directly by sub-classes.
Changing your code to explicitly add the getter/setters, solved the issue:
package com.test
import groovy.transform.CompileStatic
#CompileStatic
class ClosureScopeC {
private List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>()
private int accessThisPrivateVariable = 0;
int getAccessThisPrivateVariable() { accessThisPrivateVariable }
void setAccessThisPrivateVariable(int value ){this.accessThisPrivateVariable = value}
void add(String a) {
list.add(a)
println("before ${accessThisPrivateVariable} ${this.class.name}")
// do something with a closure
list.each {String it ->
if (it == a) {
// accessThisPrivateVariable belongs to ClosureScopeC
accessThisPrivateVariable++
}
}
println("after ${accessThisPrivateVariable}")
}
}
// this works fine
a = new ClosureScopeC()
a.add("abc")
a.add("abc")
// child class
class ClosureScopeD extends ClosureScopeC {
void doSomething(String obj) {
super.add(obj)
}
}
b = new ClosureScopeD()
b.doSomething("abc")
There is a simpler way, just make the access modifier (should rename the property really) to protected, so the sub-class has access to the property.. problem solved.
protected int accessThisProtectedVariable
To clarify on your statement of concern that Groovy possibly has broken encapsulation: rest assured it hasn't.
By declaring a field as private, Groovy is preserving encapsulation by intentionally suspending automatic generation of the public getter/setter. Once private, you are now responsible and in full control of how or if there is a way for sub-classes (protected) or all classes of objects (public) to gain access to the field by explicitly adding methods - if that makes sense.
Remember that by convention, Groovy ALWAYS calls a getter or setter when your codes references the field. So, a statement like:
def f = obj.someField
will actually invoke the obj.getSomeField() method.
Likewise:
obj.someField = 5
will invoke the obj.setSomeField(5) method.
I've developed a Class that has some methods that augment Integer, it mainly lets me do this:
def total = 100.dollars + 50.euros
Now I have to extend Integer.metaClass doing something like this:
Integer.metaClass.getDollars = {->
Money.Dollar(delegate)
}
I tried putting that at the bottom of the file, before the Money class declaration, but the compiler says that a class Named Money already exists, I know why it happens (because groovy creates a class with the name of the file with an empty static void main to run this code).
I also tried using a static block inside the class like this:
static {
Integer.metaClass.getDollars = {->
Money.Dollar(delegate)
}
}
This neither works.
A third solution would be to change the file name (like MoneyClass.groovy) and keep the class name (class Money) but that seems a bit weird.
Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.
Just put it in any method of any class maybe a bean TypeEnhancer.groovy:
public class TypeEnhancer {
public void start() {
Integer.metaClass.getDollars() = {-> Money.Dollar(delegate) }
}
public void stop() {
Integer.metaClass = null
}
}
Just create and initalize by calling start(): new TypeEnhancer().start();.
To disable the enhancement, call new TypeEnhancer().stop();. The bean can also used as Spring bean.