My question is regarding properties in haxe.
If I understand it correctly, if I make property like this
var propertyInt(get, set):Int; according to haxe documentation it's not really a variable. But I can make it a variable by modifying it this way
#:isVar var propertyInt(get, set):Int;. Otherwise I need to make two methods:
function get_propertyInt()
return propertyInt;
function set_properyInt(i)
return propertyInt = i;
So my question is: does it matter if I'm using exclusively #:isVar var propertyInt(get, set):Int; ? For example I have more than 5 properties in my class and as you can imagine making this methods for every property could be huge pain in the rear. So what is the best approach?
Here's what the documentation has to say about physical properties (also known as backing fields):
A field is considered to be physical if it is either
variable
a property with the read-access or write-access identifier being default or null
a property with :isVar metadata
So you can set up a property that fully consists of calculated values. Think a read-only property giving you the area of a rectangle as a function of width and height, or think of a property that is backed by some other property and just returns/sets width and height in a different unit. Or maybe you just want to name your backing fields differently, say m_width and m_height.
The :isVar is helpful in situations where the property access rules etc. laid out above would let the compiler think that there is no backing field needed. In that case, the code would fail (from the docs again):
// This field cannot be accessed because it
// is not a real variable
public var x(get, set):Int;
function get_x() {
return x;
}
function set_x(x) {
return this.x = x;
}
By adding :isVar you basically tell the compiler that you absolutely want the backing field. The other option for your particular case would be to use default,default, in which case the compiler knows there is an automatic backing field required and access should be restricted according to the access level of the property (public or private):
public var propertyInt(default, default):Int;
In that case you might also use a variable directly, because the net effect is in essence the same:
public var propertyInt : Int;
Related
I am attempting to use the Roslyn SDK and StackExchange.Precompilation (thank you!) to implement aspect-oriented programming in C#6. My specific problem right now is, starting with an IdentifierNameSyntax instance, I want to find the "member type" (method, property, field, var, etc.) that the identifier refers to. (How) can this be done?
Background:
The first proof-of-concept I am working on is some good old design-by-contract. I have a NonNullAttribute which can be applied to parameters, properties, or method return values. Along with the attribute there is a class implementing the StackExchange.Precompilation.ICompileModule interface, which on compilation will insert null checks on the marked parameters or return values.
This is the same idea as PostSharp's NonNullAttribute, but the transformation is being done on one of Roslyn's syntax trees, not on an already compiled assembly. It is also similar to Code Contracts, but with a declarative attribute approach, and again operating on syntax trees not IL.
For example, this source code:
[return: NonNull]
public string Capitalize([NonNull] string text) {
return text.ToUpper();
}
will be transformed into this during precompilation:
[return: NonNull]
public string Capitalize([NonNull] string text) {
if (Object.Equals(text, null))
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(text));
var result = text.ToUpper();
if (Object.Equals(result, null))
throw new PostconditionFailedException("Result cannot be null.");
return result;
}
(PostconditionFailedException is a custom exception I made to compliment ArgumentException for return values. If there is already something like this in the framework please let me know.)
For properties with this attribute, there would be a similar transformation, but with preconditions and postconditions implemented separately in the set and get accessors, respectively.
The specific reason I need to find the "member type" of an identifier here is for an optimization on implementing postconditions. Note in the post-compilation sample above, the value that would have been returned is stored in a local variable, checked, and then the local is returned. This storage is necessary for transforming return statements that evaluate a method or complex expression, but if the returned expression is just a field or local variable reference, creating that temporary storage local is wasteful.
So, when the return statement is being scanned, I first check if the statement is of the form ReturnKeyword-IdentifierSyntaxToken-SemicolonToken. If so, I then need to check what that identifier refers to, so I avoid that local variable allocation if the referent is a field or var.
Update
For more context, check out the project this is in reference to on GitHub.
You'll need to use SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo to determine the symbol an identifier binds to.
Use SemanticModel.GetTypeInfo.Type to obtain the TypeInfo and use it to explore the Type
After spending a year working with the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk namespace, I just discovered yesterday the Entity.FormattedValues property contains the text value for Entity specific (ie Local) Option Set texts.
The reason I didn't discover it before, is there is no early bound method of getting the value. i.e. entity.new_myOptionSet is of type OptionSetValue which only contains the int value. You have to call entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"] to get the string text value of the OptionSetValue.
Therefore, I'd like to get the crmsrvcutil to auto-generate a text property for local option sets. i.e. Along with Entity.new_myOptionSet being generated as it currently does, Entity.new_myOptionSetText would be generated as well.
I've looked into the Microsoft.Crm.Services.Utility.ICodeGenerationService, but that looks like it is mostly for specifying what CodeGenerationType something should be...
Is there a way supported way using CrmServiceUtil to add these properties, or am I better off writing a custom app that I can run that can generate these properties as a partial class to the auto-generated ones?
Edit - Example of the code that I would like to be generated
Currently, whenever I need to access the text value of a OptionSetValue, I use this code:
var textValue = OptionSetCache.GetText(service, entity, e => e.New_MyOptionSet);
The option set cache will use the entity.LogicalName, and the property expression to determine the name of the option set that I'm asking for. It will then query the SDK using the RetrieveAttriubteRequest, to get a list of the option set int and text values, which it then caches so it doesn't have to hit CRM again. It then looks up the int value of the New_MyOptionSet of the entity and cross references it with the cached list, to get the text value of the OptionSet.
Instead of doing all of that, I can just do this (assuming that the entity has been retrieved from the server, and not just populated client side):
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
but the "new_myoptionset" is no longer early bound. I would like the early bound entity classes that gets generated to also generate an extra "Text" property for OptionSetValue properties that calls the above line, so my entity would have this added to it:
public string New_MyOptionSetText {
return this.GetFormattedAttributeValue("new_myoptionset"); // this is a protected method on the Entity class itself...
}
Could you utilize the CrmServiceUtil extension that will generate enums for your OptionSets and then add your new_myOptionSetText property to a partial class that compares the int value to the enums and returns the enum string
Again, I think specifically for this case, getting CrmSvcUtil.exe to generate the code you want is a great idea, but more generally, you can access the property name via reflection using an approach similar to the accepted answer # workarounds for nameof() operator in C#: typesafe databinding.
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
// becomes
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues
[
// renamed the class from Nameof to NameOf
NameOf(Xrm.MyEntity).Property(x => x.new_MyOptionSet).ToLower()
];
The latest version of the CRM Early Bound Generator includes a Fields struct that that contains the field names. This allows accessing the FormattedValues to be as simple as this:
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues[MyEntity.Fields.new_MyOptionSet];
You could create a new property via an interface for the CrmSvcUtil, but that's a lot of work for a fairly simple call, and I don't think it justifies creating additional properties.
I'm using mongoose for my data access layer, and I really like the different
features it offers to create document models (Attributes, Methods, Static Methods..)
I use the virtual attribute feature of mongoose to create attributes that will not be persisted to MongoDB. However, these attributes are computationaly expensive (and using them many times is not helping me).
Lets take for example the same example on mongoose virtual
it persists person.name.first and person.name.last, and uses virtual attribute for person.name.full
Let's say I want to compute person.name.full only one time per the lifetime of the document
(and if I allow to set the attribute or its dependent fields like in the example, then also for every get after a dirty set).
I need an extra variable in the document scope, so naturally I used closures for this
but the 'this' scope in the function that computes the attribute, is of the global object, and not of the document I'm working on.
Code:
var makeLazyAttribute = function(computeAttribute) {
var attribute = null;
return function() {
if(!attribute) {
attribute = computeAttribute();
}
return attribute;
}
};
MySchema.virtual('myAttribute').get(makeLazyAttribute(function () {
// some code that uses this, this should be the document I'm working on
// error: first is not defined, inspecting what is this gives me the global object
return this.first + this.last
}));
Please help!
Well, ok, I've made some progress makeLazyAttribute does execute in the document scope
so I only needed to change attribute = computeAttribute(); to
attribute = computeAttribute.call(this); .
However, now Im only remembering the first ever computeAttribute() invocation instead of remembering
the first function invocation per each document.
Must have a way to mitigate this.
I am working with the classes in the System.Windows.Documents namespace, trying to write some generic code that will conditionally set the value of certain dependency properties, depending on whether these properties exist on a given class.
For example, the following method assigns an arbitrary value to the Padding property of the passed FrameworkContentElement:
void SetElementPadding(FrameworkContentElement element)
{
element.SetValue(Block.PaddingProperty, new Thickness(155d));
}
However, not all concrete implementations of FrameworkContentElement have a Padding property (Paragraph does but Span does not) so I would expect the property assignment to succeed for types that implement this property and to be silently ignored for types that do not.
But it seems that the above property assignment succeeds for instances of all derivatives of FrameworkContentElement, regardless of whether they implement the Padding property. I make this assumption because I have always been able to read back the assigned value.
I assume there is some flaw in the way I am assigning property values. What should I do to ensure that a given dependency property assignment is ignored by classes that do not implement that property?
Many thanks for your advice.
Tim
All classes that derive from Block have the Padding property. You may use the following modification:
void SetElementPadding(FrameworkContentElement element)
{
var block = element as Block;
if (block == null) return;
block.Padding = new Thickness(155d);
}
Even without this modification everything would still work for you because all you want is for Padding to be ignored by classes that do not support it. This is exactly what would happen. The fact that you can read out the value of a Padding dependency property on an instance that does not support it is probably by design but you shouldn't care. Block and derivatives would honor the value and all others would ignore it.
If you have a class with some plain get/set properties, is there any reason to use the getters within the class methods, or should you just use the private member variables? I think there could be more of an argument over setters (validation logic?), but I'm wondering just about getters.
For example (in Java) - is there any reason to use option 2?:
public class Something
{
private int messageId;
public int getMessageId() { return this.messageId; }
public void setMessage(int messageId) { this.messageId = messageId; }
public void doSomething()
{
// Option 1:
doSomethingWithMessageId(messageId);
// Option 2:
doSomethingWithMessageId(getMessageId());
}
}
Java programmers in general tend to be very consistent about using getter methods. I program multiple languages and I'm not that consistent about it ;)
I'd say as long as you don't make a getter it's ok to use the raw variable - for private variables. When you make a getter, you should be using only that. When I make a getter for a private field, my IDE suggests that it replace raw field accesses for me automatically when I introduce a getter. Switching to using a getter is only a few keystrokes away (and without any chance of introducing errors), so I tend to delay it until I need it.
Of course, if you want to stuff like getter-injection, some types of proxying and subclassing framworks like hibernate, you have to user getters!
With getters you wont accidentally modify the variables :) Also, if you use both getters and the "raw" variable, your code can get confused.
Also, if you use inheritance and redefined the getter methods in child classes, getter-using methods will work properly, whereas those using the raw variables would not.
If you use the getter method everywhere - and in the future perform a code-search on all calls of getMessageId() you will find all of them, whereas if you had used the private ones, you may miss some.
Also if there's ever logic to be introduced in the setter method, you wont have to worry about changing more than 1 location for it.
If the value that you are assigning to the property is a known or verified value, you could safely use the private variable directly. (Except perhaps in some special situations, where it would be obvious why that would be bad.) Whether you do or not is more a matter of taste or style. It's not a performance issue either, as the getter or setter will be inlined by the compiler if it's simple enough.
If the value is unknown to the class, you should use the property to set it, so that you can protect the property from illegal values.
Here's an example (in C#):
public class Something {
private string _value;
public string Value {
get {
return _value;
}
set {
if (value == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
_value = value;
}
}
public Something() {
// using a known value
_value = "undefined";
}
public Something(string initValue) {
// using an unknown value
Value = initValue;
}
}
If you use the getter you're ensuring you'll get the value after any logic/decisions have been applied to it. This probably isn't your typical situation but when it is, you'll thank yourself for this.
Unless I have a specific use case to use the internal field directly in the enclosing class, I've always felt that it's important to use access the field the same way it is accessed publicly. This ensures consistency in the return values across the board should there ever be any need to add some post-processing to the field via the getter method, or property. I feel like it's perfectly fine to access the raw field if you want its raw value for one reason or another.
More often than not, the getter encapsulation is plain and simple boilerplate code -- you're most likely not returning anything other than the field's value itself. However, in the case where you may want to change the way the data is presented at some point in the future, it's one less refactoring you have to make internally.