I have code using AutoMapper 3.2.1.0 that uses the method ToNullSafeString().
I upgraded the NUGet package to 4.1.1.0, and I can no longer find the method in their package.Does anyone know the recommended approach to replacing the function? Is there a new construct that is functionally equivalent? If so, I cannot figure what it is. Nor can I find any mention of why it was removed.
This question has actually been answered pretty well in a couple of comments below it. For completeness, here are a couple of actual implementations of solutions.
Short answer
Probably both the simplest and the best solution: Replace all instances of .ToNullSafeString() with ?.ToString(). This does the same, but uses functionality built into newer versions of .Net instead of relying on an external extension method.
Alternative answer
If you've got a bunch of calls to the ToNullSafeString() method from the earlier version Automapper, and for some reason or other you can't or don't want to go through all your code and edit it away right now, you can use this instead.
Add the following class to your project, and make sure it can be reached from any classes that previously called the Automapper-method. Those calls will then automatically point to this instead.
public static class NullSafeStringHelper
{
public static string ToNullSafeString(this object value)
{
return value?.ToString();
}
}
Related
When moving my functions to .net5 I faced the fact that POCO binding that worked fine with 3.1 is not applicable with .net 5 anymore for some reason. They say it will be implemented at some point maybe, but for the certain reasons I need it now. Tried to find some hacky way to implement this, but failed. The best thought I had was to implement explicit operator in my DTO object which will cast HttpRequestData to it's type, but the problem is that HttpRequestData is an abstract type, and it's concrete implementation type is internal. After that I tried to cast the input parameter to HttpRequestData in middleware with reflection, but parameters are stored in IReadOnlyDictionary which is immutable. So I ran out of ideas now. Maybe someone found workaround to this and can kindly share, would be much appreciated.
I suppose you're using the "dotnet-isolated" mode (only way to run on .NET 5).
I'm trying to find a more elegant solution to this as well.
Meanwhile, what I did was to deserialize the data myself, inside the function.
var body = await new StreamReader(request.Body).ReadToEndAsync();
var myobject = JsonSerializer.Deserialize<MyPocoClass>(json);
I would really prefer if the runtime did it by itself, but I couln't find a way yet. I read somewhere that it is possible to create our own binding code, but I haven't tried it.
I noticed that I could bind to individual properties of the json payload, but not to an object...
I hope this arrives in Azure Functions v4 + .NET6, since it is right around the corner.
I'm in the process of trying to migrate a R# extension project from R# 6 to R# 8. (I've taken over a project that someone wrote, and I'm new to writing extensions.)
In the existing v6 project there is a class that derives from RenameWorkflow, and the constructor used to look like this;
public class RenameStepWorkflow : RenameWorkflow
{
public RenameStepWorkflow(ISolution Solution, string ActionId)
: base(Solution, ActionId)
{
}
This used to work in R# SDK v 6, but now in V8, RenameWorkflow no longer has a constructor that takes Solution and actionId. The new constructor signature now looks like this;
public RenameWorkflow(
IShellLocks locks,
SearchDomainFactory searchDomainFactory,
RenameRefactoringService renameRefactoringService,
ISolution solution,
string actionId);
now heres my problem that I need help with (I think)
I've copied the constructor, and now the constructor of this class has to satisfy these new dependancies. Through some digging I've managed to find a way to satisfy all the dependencies, except for 'SearchDomainFactory'. The closest I can come to instantiating via the updated constructor is as follows;
new RenameStepWorkflow(Solution.Locks, JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance, RenameRefactoringService.Instance, this.Solution, null)
All looks good, except that JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance is marked as Obsolete, and gives me a compile error that I cannot work around, even using #pragma does not allow me to compile the code. The exact error message I get when I compile is Error 16 'JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance' is obsolete: 'Inject me!'
Obvious next question..ok, how? How do I 'inject you'? I cannot find any documentation over this new breaking change, in fact, I cannot find any documentation (or sample projects) that even mentions DrivenRefactoringWorkflow or RenameWorkflow, (the classes that now require the new SearchDomainFactory), or any information on SearchDomainFactory.Instance suddenly now obsolete and how to satisfy the need to 'inject' it.
Any help would be most appreciated! Thank you,
regards
Alan
ReSharper has its own IoC container, which is responsible for creating instances of classes, and "injecting" dependencies as constructor parameters. Classes marked with attributes such as [ShellComponent] or [SolutionComponent] are handled by the container, created when the application starts or a solution is loaded, respectively.
Dependencies should be injected as constructor parameters, rather than using methods like GetComponent<TDependency> or static Instance properties, as this allows the container to control dependency lifetime, and ensure you're depending on appropriate components, and not creating leaks - a shell component cannot depend on a solution component for instance, it won't exist when the shell component is being created.
ReSharper introduced the IoC container a few releases ago, and a large proportion of the codebase has been updated to use it correctly, but there are a few hold-outs, where things are still done in a less than ideal manner - static Instance properties and calls to GetComponent. This is what you've encountered. You should be able to get an instance of SearchDomainFactory by putting it as a constructor parameter in your component.
You can find out more about the Component Model (the IoC container and related functionality) in the devguide: https://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/devguide/Platform/ComponentModel.html
I have a library of domain objects which need to be used in the project, however we've found a couple of the classes haven't got an equals or hashCode method implemented.
I'm looking for the simplest (and Grooviest) way to add those methods. Obviously I could create a subclass which only adds the methods, but this would be confusing for developers used to the library and would mean we'd have to refactor existing code.
It is not possible to get the source changed (currently).
If I could edit the class I would just use the #EqualsAndHashCode annotation to carry out an AST transformation (at compile time?), but I can't find a way to instruct the compiler to carry out the transformation on a class which I can't directly annotate.
I'm currently trying to work up an example using the ExpandoMetaClass, so I'd do something like:
MySuperClass.metaClass.hashCode = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
MySuperClass.metaClass.equals = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
I don't really want to hand-code the hashCode/equals methods for each class, so I'm looking for something dyamic (like #EqualsAndHashCode) which will work with this.
Am I on the right track? Is there a groovier way?
AST Transforms are only applied at compile time, so you'll get no help from the likes of #EqualsAndHashCode. MetaClass hacks are going to be your only option. That said, there are more-elegant ways to impose MetaClass behavior.
Shameless Self Plug I did a talk about this kind of stuff last year at SpringOne 2GX: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/groovy-app-architecture
In short, you might find benefit in creating extensions (unless you're in Grails) - http://mrhaki.blogspot.com/2013/01/groovy-goodness-adding-extra-methods.html, or by explicitly adding mixins - http://groovy.codehaus.org/Runtime+mixins ... But in general, these are just cleaner ways to do the exact same thing you're already doing.
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.