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.
Related
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 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.
What I need: a class with two parents, which are ContextBoundObject and another class.
Why: I need to access the ContextBoundOject to log the method calls.
Composition works? As of now, no (types are not recognized, among other things).
Are other ways to do this? Yes, but not so automatable and without third-party components (maybe a T4 could do, but I'm no expert).
A more detailed explanation.
I need to extend System classes (some of which have already MarshalByRefObject (which is the parent of ContextBoundObject) for parent, for example ServiceBase and FileSystemWatcher, and some not, for example Exception and Timer) to access some inner workings of the framework, so I can log method calls (for now; in future it may change).
If I use this way I only have to add a class name to the object I want to log, instead of adding the logging calls to every method, but obviously I can't do this:
public class MyService:ServiceBase,ContextBoundObject,IDisposable{
public MyService(){}
public Dispose(){}
}
so one could try the usual solution, interfaces, but then if I call Run as in:
ServiceBase.Run(new MyService());
using a hypotethical interface IServiceBase it wouldn't work, because the type ServiceBase is not castable to IServiceBase -- it doesn't inherit from any interface. The problem is even worse with exceptions: throw only accepts a type descending from Exception.
The reverse, producing a IContextBoundObject interface, doesn't seem to work either: the logging mechanism doesn't work by methods, so I don't need to implement any, just an attribute and some small internal classes (and inheriting from ContextBoundObject, not even from MarshalByRefObject, which the metadata present as practically the same).
From what I see, extending from ContextBoundObject puts the extended class in a Proxy (probably because in this way the method calls use SyncProcessMessage(IMessage) and so can be intercepted and logged), maybe there's a way to do it without inheritance, or maybe there could be pre or post compiling techniques available for surrounding methods with logging calls (like T4 Text Templates), I don't know.
If someone wants to give this a look, I used a customized version of MSTestExtentions in my program to do the logging (of the method calls).
Any ideas are appreciated. There could be the need for more explanations, just ask.
Logging method calls is usually done using attributes to annotate classes or methods for which you want to have logging enabled. This is called Aspect Oriented Programming.
For this to work, you need a software that understands those attributes and post-processes your assembly by adding the necessary code to the methods / classes that have been annotated.
For C# there exists PostSharp. See here for an introduction.
Experimenting with proxies I found a way that apparently logs explicit calls.
Essentially I create a RealProxy like in example in the msdn, then obtain the TransparentProxy and use that as the normal object.
The logging is done in the Invoke method overridden in the customized RealProxy class.
static void Main(){
...
var ServiceClassProxy=new ServiceRealProxy(typeof(AServiceBaseClass),new object[]{/*args*/});
aServiceInstance=(AServiceBaseClass)ServiceClassProxy.GetTransparentProxy();
ServiceBase.Run(aServiceInstance);
...
}
In the proxy class the Invoke will be done like this:
class ServiceRealProxy:RealProxy{
...
[SecurityPermissionAttribute(SecurityAction.LinkDemand, Flags=SecurityPermissionFlag.Infrastructure)]
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage myIMessage){
// remember to set the "__Uri" property you get in the constructor
...
/* logging before */
myReturnMessage = ChannelServices.SyncDispatchMessage(myIMessage);
/* logging after */
...
return myReturnMessage;
// it could be useful making a switch for all the derived types from IMessage; I see 18 of them, from
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.ConstructionCall
// ... to
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.TransitionCall
}
...
}
I have still to investigate extensively, but the logging happened. This isn't an answer to my original problem because I have still to test this on classes that don't inherit from MarshalByRefObject.
I fell in love with Groovy and try to use it more and more. Now I have to work with Oracle Forms Jdapi library. When working with this library, you write a lot of code like this:
JdapiIterator progIterator = getWorkForm().getProgramUnits();
while(progIterator.hasNext()) {
ProgramUnit currProgUnit = (ProgramUnit) progIterator.next();
...
}
and of cource I would like to write
getWorkForm().programUnits.each {
...
}
However, I never wrote a Groovy interface to an existing Java library and need some assistance. I know about Groovy 2.0's extension methods, but in that case I am thinking about a class with the same name in a different namespace which delegates only to the functions I would like to keep.
What is the best approach for providing the each functionality, but also all other closures applicable for collections? I would appreciate if you point me in the right direction!
The only method you need to provide is the iterator() method. You then get all of the Groovy Object iteration methods (each(), find(), any(), every(), collect(), ...) for free!
I'm using code contract (actually, learning using this).
I'm facing something weird to me... I override a method, defined in a 3rd party assembly. I want to add a Contract.Require statement like this:
public class MyClass: MyParentClass
{
protected override void DoIt(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
this.ExecuteMyTask(param.Something);
}
protected void ExecuteMyTask(MyParameter param)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(param != null);
/* body of the method */
}
}
However, I'm getting warnings like this:
Warning 1 CodeContracts:
Method 'MyClass.DoIt(MyParameter)' overrides 'MyParentClass.DoIt(MyParameter))', thus cannot add Requires.
[edit] changed the code a bit to show alternatives issues [/edit]
If I remove the Contract.Requires in the DoIt method, I get another warning, telling me I have to provide unproven param != null
I don't understand this warning. What is the cause, and can I solve it?
You can't add extra requirements which your callers may not know about. It violates Liskov's Subtitution Principle. The point of polymorphism is that a caller should be able to treat a reference which actually refers to an instance of your derived class as if it refers to an instance of the base class.
Consider:
MyParentClass foo = GetParentClassFromSomewhere();
DoIt(null);
If that's statically determined to be valid, it's wrong for your derived class to hold up its hands and say "No! You're not meant to call DoIt with a null argument!" The aim of static analysis of contracts is that you can determine validity of calls, logic etc at compile-time... so no extra restrictions can be added at execution time, which is what happens here due to polymorphism.
A derived class can add guarantees about what it will do - what it will ensure - but it can't make any more demands from its callers for overridden methods.
I'd like to note that you can do what Jon suggested (this answers adds upon his) but also have your contract without violating LSP.
You can do so by replacing the override keyword with new.
The base remains the base; all you did is introduce another functionality (as the keywords literally suggest).
It's not ideal for static-checking because the safety could be easily casted away (cast to base-class first, then call the method) but that's a must because otherwise it would violate LSP and you do not want to do that obviously. Better than nothing though, I'd say.
In an ideal world you could also override the method and call the new one, but C# wouldn't let you do so because the methods would have the same signatures (even tho it would make perfect sense; that's the trade-off).