I've a set of concepts that represent types of entities
Hrrr.
Sample concepts:
Loop with children loopCount: IntegerProperty[1]
HttpRequest with children url: StringProperty[1], hostName: StringProperty[1]
Both concepts extend AbstractTestElement concept (it defines common properties like name, comment, etc).
I want Loop and HttpRequest to be generated to baseLanguage as follows:
Loop:
Loop e = new Loop();
e.setProperty(new IntegerProperty("loopCount", node.loopCount));
HttpRequest:
HttpRequest e = new HttpRequest();
e.setProperty(new StringProperty("url", node.url));
e.setProperty(new IntegerProperty("host", node.hostName));
What I want is to have some common generator template that covers this common logic for setProperty so it is not repeated for different kinds of test elements.
Well, there are properties that require specific-to-test-element treatment, however there are often cases when properties are one-to-one translated, thus
Here's the question: how can I attach metadata to the Loop/HttpRequest concept configuration?
What is MPS-idiomatic way of doing that?
1) While I could use "names of properties" as names put into the new XXXProperty, however ideally I would use HttpRequest.HOST_PROPERTY_NAME kind of references, thus "names of properties" is not sufficient.
2) I might probably invent annotations and annotate properties of my concepts, it looks like MPS itself does not use that approach.
3) (ab)using concept's behaviors to return <quotation new StringProperty("url", node.url) > looks even more awkward.
I would rather not use 2. and 3. because both approaches add generator behavior into aspects of your languages which aren't aware of the fact how things will be generated. It basically tight couples you structure with your generator.
If you go for 1, you can still use that static class approach. By creating a new rootnode in the generator which is a java class and contains all your fields. And then have generic generator template that reduces the IntegerProperty and so on ... If they have a common super concept it should be fairly easy to do. You just have to make sure that the property is generated before the containing concept. That way you can still access the role of it in the parent and use that information to generate the field access.
Related
I am building a Python application which calculates sales, stock available and parts required which first asks a user to choose their department from a combobox.
What design should I use to best inform all classes within the application of the choice of department? Once the department is chosen it remains used throughout the application and for the lifecycle of the application instance.
class Sales:
def __init__(self, departmentname):
self.departmentname = departmentname
self.conn = pyodbc.connect(jsonhandler.get_json('connections.json'))
def calculate_sales(self):
with self.conn:
departmentsalesvalues = pd.read_sql_query(f"""SELECT productcode, quantity, salesprice
FROM salestable
WHERE department = ?""", self.conn,
params=(self.departmentname))
return departmentsalesvalues
This works but it seems clumsy/a poor design. I believe I am missing a concept/pattern which would be useful in all programming languages. Can someone point me in the right direction please?
The questions I have asked myself:
Should I create a Department class? But because the department is not similar to the other classes in any way inheritance seems to be out of the question.
Should I pass this information around in a Main/App class? (Which is what i am currently doing.)
Should I have an 'orchestrator' class which interfaces with the Main/App class?
I am quite new to building scalable applications but I find this sort of design question occurring more and more in my projects.
For a variable that is used everywhere and for the life of the application I see two ways that will accomplish the task.
A) Create a global variable (I know.. globals variables are bad. But for this particular scenario, when all you need is the department and you need it everywhere, a global variable is better than rewriting all of your classes to accept a constructor value)
B) Create a 'Context' class that has the department choice as a variable. The context item gets passed to all of your functions when they are called and you can add more information to the context class if need be.
For scalable applications, you would store this information in a 'configuration' file or in a special table in the database.
You would then have context and middleware.
Context is a dictionary that is passed to all of your business functions.
Middleware is a list of classes that alter the context in some way.
You would have a middleware class called "UserChoices" that has a function:
def alterContext(context={}):
context["DepartmentChoice"] = readDBvalue()
return context
Then you would get the context like so
def getContext():
context ={}
for m in middlewares:
context = m(context)
return context
And then you can use your business functions like so
def businessFunc(context):
return stuff
businessFunc(getContext())
I am mocking an interface array which throws java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot subclass final class class.
Following are the changes I did.
Added the following annotations at class level in this exact order:
#Runwith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ Array1[].class, Array2[].class })
Inside the class I am doing like this:
Array1[] test1= PowerMockito.mock(Array1[].class);
Array2[] test2= PowerMockito.mock(Array2[].class);
and inside test method:
Mockito.when(staticclass.somemethod()).thenReturn(test1);
Mockito.when(staticclass.somediffmethod()).thenReturn(test2);
Basically I need to mock an array of interfaces.
Any help would be appreciated.
Opening up another perspective on your problem: I think you are getting unit tests wrong.
You only use mocking frameworks in order to control the behavior of individual objects that you provide to your code under test. But there is no sense in mocking an array of something.
When your "class under test" needs to deal with some array, list, map, whatever, then you provide an array, a list, or a map to it - you just make sure that the elements within that array/collection ... are as you need them. Maybe the array is empty for one test, maybe it contains a null for another test, and maybe it contains a mocked object for a third test.
Meaning - you don't do:
SomeInterface[] test1 = PowerMock.mock() ...
Instead you do:
SomeInterface[] test1 = new SomeInterface[] { PowerMock.mock(SomeInterface.class) };
And allow for some notes:
At least in your code, it looks like you called your interface "Array1" and "Array2". That is highly misleading. Give interfaces names that say what their behavior is about. The fact that you later create arrays containing objects of that interface ... doesn't matter at all!
Unless you have good reasons - consider not using PowerMock. PowerMock relies on byte-code manipulation; and can simply cause a lot of problems. In most situations, people wrote untestable code; and then they turn to PowerMock to somehow test that. But the correct answer is to rework that broken design, and to use a mocking framework that comes without "power" in its name. You can watch those videos giving you lengthy explanations how to write testable code!
I was wondering whether one can influence the "style" of the code that JAXB generates from XML schema (.xsd) fles. E.g. I would like to:
emit a comment inside newly generated classes, specifically if the class is empty, since that triggers warnings in my environment.
change all setter-methods to return the object instead of "void", so one can do call-chaining like:
X someMethod() {
return new X().setFoo(5).setBar("something");
}
instead of the tedious:
X someMethod() {
X x = new (X);
x.setFoo(5);
x.setBar("something");
return x;
}
Is there some "template" anywhere that JAXB uses and that one could tweak, to achieve such things? Or is that all hard-coded?
M.
There is no template for modifying the generated code easily.
There is, however, a number of plugins. For instance: https://java.net/projects/jaxb2-commons/pages/Fluent-api which is just what you want according to your 2nd bullet.
There are other plugins, e.g. for annotations suppressing warnings - that may help against the 1st bullet.
As an extra, I'd like to mention that not generating Java classes from an XML schema but writing them by hand (plus annotations, of course) is a plausible alternative, provided the XML schema isn't too complex. It may have other advantages besides solving #1 and #2.
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'm working to create some services with JAX-RS, and am relatively new to JAXB (actually XML in general) so please don't assume I know the pre-requisites that I probably should know! Here's the questions: I want to send and receive "partial" objects in XML. That is, imagine one has an object (Java form, obviously) with:
class Thing { int x, String y, Customer z }
I want to be able to send an XML output that contains (dynamically chosen, so I can't use XmlTransient) just x, or just z, or x and y, but not z, or any other combination that suits my client. The point, obviously, is that sometimes the client doesn't need everything, so I can save some bandwidth (particularly with lists of deep, complex objects, which this example clearly doesn't illustrate!).
Also, for input, the same bandwidth argument applies; I would like to be able to have the client send just the particular fields that should be updated in, say, a PUT operation, and ignore the rest, then have the server "merge" those new values onto existing objects and leave the un-mentioned fields unchanged.
This seems to be supported in the Jackson JSON libraries (though I'm still working on it), but I'm having trouble finding it in JAXB. Any ideas?
One thought that I was pondering is whether one can do this in some way via Maps. If I created a Map (potentially nested Maps, for nested coplex objects) of what I want to send, could JAXB send that with a plausible structure? And if it could create such a map on input, I guess I could work through it to make the updates. Not perfect, but maybe?
And yes, I know that the "documents" that will be flying around will probably fail to comply with schemas, having missing fields and all that, but I'm ok with that, provided the infrastructure can be made to work.
Oh, and I know I could do this "manually" with SAX, StAX, or DOM parsing, but I'm hoping there's a rather more automatic way, particularly since JAXB handles the whole objects so effortlessly.
Cheers,
Toby
Note: I'm the EclipseLink JAXB (MOXy) lead and a member of the JAXB (JSR-222) expert group.
EclipseLink JAXB (MOXy) offerst this support through its object graph extension. Object graphs allow you to specify a subset of properties for the purposes of marshalling an unmarshalling. They may be created at runtime programatically:
// Create the Object Graph
ObjectGraph contactInfo = JAXBHelper.getJAXBContext(jc).createObjectGraph(Customer.class);
contactInfo.addAttributeNodes("name");
Subgraph location = contactInfo.addSubgraph("billingAddress");
location.addAttributeNodes("city", "province");
Subgraph simple = contactInfo.addSubgraph("phoneNumbers");
simple.addAttributeNodes("value");
// Output XML - Based on Object Graph
marshaller.setProperty(MarshallerProperties.OBJECT_GRAPH, contactInfo);
marshaller.marshal(customer, System.out);
or statically on the class through annotations:
#XmlNamedObjectGraph(
name="contact info",
attributeNodes={
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("name"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode(value="billingAddress", subgraph="location"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode(value="phoneNumbers", subgraph="simple")
},
subgraphs={
#XmlNamedSubgraph(
name="location",
attributeNodes = {
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("city"),
#XmlNamedAttributeNode("province")
}
)
}
)
#XmlRootElement
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
public class Customer {
For More Information
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2013/03/moxys-object-graphs-partial-models-on.html
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2013/03/moxys-object-graphs-inputoutput-partial.html
http://blog.bdoughan.com/2011/05/specifying-eclipselink-moxy-as-your.html