I've got a Visual Studio extension, where much of the functionality is written through MEF. So far, my individual functionality is per ITextBuffer, so I have used the Properties member to cache instances.
However, now I have some functionality that needs to be per-project and per-solution. The EnvDTE classes offer a Properties object but I couldn't figure out whether or not they could store my own arbitrary data. I really don't want to make my own data static.
How can I store per-project and per-solution data without having to resort to global variables?
Edit:
I might also mention that since you can't use MEF imports for static data, even if you hide it in something like a Singleton, then using the global variable route is physically impossible. So I really, really need something that is not a global.
Edit:
I'm talking about object references, not persistent values. I don't need to store anything in a solution or project file, only with the object.
I found a way to convince MEF to honour my static imports, so for now, I'm just using some static data.
(Microsoft.VisualStudio.Shell.Package.GetGlobalService(typeof(SComponentModel)) as IComponentModel).DefaultCompositionService.SatisfyImportsOnce(this);
It was posted somewhere else- maybe even on SO- took me a while to find it though. Note that this has no interface required- reflection is used, so it should be valid for any this.
If I understand your question correctly, you can create a stub class that you do the exports from, instead of trying to force your static classes to export.
public class HostClass
{
public static string StaticString
{ get { return "string value"; } }
}
public class HostClassStub
{
[Export("StaticStringValue", typeof(string))]
public string StaticString
{ get { return HostClass.StaticString; } }
}
You may also consider just making your static class un-static, if that's an option for you. Remember, that by default MEF imports are singletons, so it should be just like having a global set of variables for each project that does the import.
I know this doesn't address the VS Extensions aspect of your problem, but I haven't dealt with those. Maybe this'll give you a path to your solution, though.
Related
I started working with CodedUI few months before to automate a desktop Application(WPF).
Just checking out for the best ways to create a framework for my Application.
As, I have seen in other automation tools, I feel the heart of an automation framework using any tool(UI Based) is the way it's object Repository is created i.e. how well the UI objects are defined. A Cleaner and well defined Object Repository always proves to be very helpful when it comes to updating your tests.
I am trying to discover the best way to store my UIObjects so that in case of any UI changes in my Application, I have to put minimum effort to update my automation test.
Also, If an Object changes in application, updating it only at one place should solve the problem.
This can be any kind of change like :
->change in just a property(This I feel would be very easy to update in automation Test. The best and Easiet way I feel is to simply update the .uitest file(the xml file) if possible.)
->change in hierarchy and position
->entirely new object added
For the 2nd and 3rd changes, updating scripts become a difficult job, esp if the UIObject is being referred at may places, in many TestMethods, or Modules.
Also, I have generally seen that in Test Methods, Variable Declarations are done to create a reference to the UIMap objects and those variables are further used in the TestMethod Code.
So, in this case If the UI of my application changes, I will have to update the variable decalaration in each of the Test Methods. I want to reduce this effort to changing the variable decalaration only at one place. OfCourse, I cannot have all the code inside only one Test Method. One way that came to my mind is as:
Can't I have simply one common place for all these Variable decalarations. We can give a unique and understandable name to each UIObject e.g.: The decalratoions will look like:
UITabPage UITabPage = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage;
WpfRow UIRow = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow;
WpfText UIEquipmentTagText = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UITagCell.UIEquipmentTagText;
WpfCheckBox UIEquipmentCheckBox = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UICheckBoxCell.UICheckBox;
....
....
and use these variables wherever required. Hence, In case of any chnages also, there will be only one place where you will need to update thse objects.
But for this, These varaibles must be made STATIC. What can be problem with making these Object Variables static?
Please provide your suggestion on this topic. May be what I am thinking is not possible or practical. I just want to choose the best way to start with before I go too far with the automation scripts and realize later that my approach wasn't a good one.
Thanks in Advance,
Shruti
Look into using descriptive programming instead of using the UIMaps.
Make a static class with generic functions to assist. Going to give you some examples of how to set it up.
For example:
public WinWindow parentwin(string ParentControlName)
{
var parentwin = new WinWindow();
parentwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ParentControlName);
return parentwin;
}
public WinWindow childwin(string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = new WinWindow(parentwin(ParentControlName));
childwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ChildWinControlName);
return childwin;
}
public WinButton button(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = childwin(ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
var button = new WinButton(childwin);
button.SearchProperties.Add("Name", ButtonName);
}
public void ClickButton(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var button = button(ButtonName,ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
Mouse.Click(button);
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocus)
{
var NewFocus = new NewFocus();
NewFocus.SetFocus();
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocusChild, string c)
{
var a = new NewFocus();
a.SetFocus();
}
ChangeFocus(childwin("WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
ClickButton("&OK", "WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
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 think i understood how CDI works and in order to dive deep in it, i would like to try using it with something real world example. I am stuck with one thing where i need your help to make me understand. I would really appreciate your help in this regard.
I have my own workflow framework developed using Java reflection API and XML configurations where based on specific type of "source" and "eventName" i load appropriate Module class and invoke "process" method on that. Everything is working fine in our project.
I got excited with CDI feature and wanted to give it try with workflow framework where i am planning inject Module class instead of loading them using Reflection etc...
Just to give you an idea, I will try to keep things simple here.
"Message.java" is a kind of Transfer Object which carries "Source" and "eventName", so that we can load module appropriately.
public class Message{
private String source;
private String eventName;
}
Module configurations are as below
<modules>
<module>
<source>A</source>
<eventName>validate</eventName>
<moduleClass>ValidatorModule</moduleClass>
</module>
<module>
<source>B</source>
<eventName>generate</eventName>
<moduleClass>GeneratorModule</moduleClass>
</module>
</modules>
ModuleLoader.java
public class ModuleLoader {
public void loadAndProcess(Message message){
String source=message.getSource();
String eventName=message.getEventName();
//Load Module based on above values.
}
}
Question
Now , if i want to implement same via CDI to inject me a Module (in ModuleLoader class), I can write Factory class with #Produce method , which can do that. BUT my question is,
a) how can pass Message Object to #Produce method to do lookup based on eventName and source ?
Can you please provide me suggestions ?
Thanks in advance.
This one is a little tricky because CDI doesn't work the same way as your custom solution (if I understand it correctly). CDI must have all the list of dependencies and resolutions for those dependencies at boot time, where your solution sounds like it finds everything at runtime where things may change. That being said there are a couple of things you could try.
You could try injecting an InjectionPoint as a parameter to a producer method and returning the correct object, or creating the correct type.
There's also creating your own extension of doing this and creating dependencies and wiring them all up in the extension (take a look at ProcessInjectionTarget, ProcessAnnotatedType, and 'AfterBeanDiscovery` events. These two quickstarts may also help get some ideas going.
I think you may be going down the wrong path regarding a producer. Instead it more than likely would be much better to use an observer especially based on what you've described.
I'm making the assumption that the "Message" transfer object is used abstractly like a system wide event where basically you fire the event and you would like some handler defined in your XML framework you've created to determine the correct manager for the event, instantiate it (if need be), and then call the class passing it the event.
#ApplicationScoped
public class MyMessageObserver {
public void handleMessageEvent(#Observes Message message) {
//Load Module based on above values and process the event
}
}
Now let's assume you want to utilize your original interface (I'll guess it looks like):
public interface IMessageHandler {
public void handleMessage(final Message message);
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class EventMessageHandler implements IMessageHandler {
#Inject
private Event<Message> messageEvent;
public void handleMessage(Message message) {
messageEvent.fire(message);
}
}
Then in any legacy class you want to use it:
#Inject
IMessageHandler handler;
This will allow you to do everything you've described.
May be you need somthing like that:
You need the qualifier. Annotation like #Module, which will take two paramters source and eventName; They should be non qualifier values. See docs.
Second you need a producer:
#Produces
#Module
public Module makeAmodule(InjectionPoint ip) {
// load the module, take source and eventName from ip
}
Inject at proper place like that:
#Inject
#Module(source="A", eventName="validate")
Module modulA;
There is only one issue with that solution, those modules must be dependent scope, otherwise system will inject same module regardles of source and eventName.
If you want to use scopes, then you need make source and eventName qualified parameters and:
make an extension for CDI, register programmatically producers
or make producer method for each and every possible combinations of source and eventName (I do not think it is nice)
I would like to know the best practice for a class oriented DDD.
Since i am doing domain validation in custom setters named ChangeX(string x) i might be pushed to use this as property.
public virtual string example { get;
private set; }
However, that not very good since it disable me from using the object initialization feature such as :
new Object { Example = "Some example"
}
So i though why not passing the custom set into the property set ? like this
public virtual string Example { get {
return Example; } set {
ChangeExample(value); } }
Is this can lead to any problems ? it is against best practices ?
Thanks.
Real problem here is using setters as such. Why do You need them?
When You use setters, You lose isolation - You can modify state of objects from outside w/o them knowing that. That leads to procedural code.
In contrast - You should ask objects to do something (not just modify their state) that would eventually might lead to them changing their own state.
I think this solution is fine. One reason to have setters is to make sure your under laying fields never hold incorrect values.
I read this answer and its comments and I'm curious: Are there any reasons for not using this / Self / Me ?
BTW: I'm sorry if this has been asked before, it seems that it is impossible to search for the word this on SO.
Warning: Purely subjective answer below.
I think the best "reason" for not using this/self/me is brevity. If it's already a member variable/function then why redundantly add the prefix?
Personally I avoid the use of this/self/me unless it's necessary to disambiguate a particular expression for the compiler. Many people disagree with this but I haven't ever had it be a real sticking point in any group I've worked for.
I think most of the common scenarios have been covered in the two posts already cited; mainly brevity and redundancy vs clarity - a minor addition: in C#, it is required to use "this" in order to access an "extension method" for the current type - i.e.
this.Foo();
where Foo() is declared externally as:
public static void Foo(this SomeType obj) {...}
It clarifies in some instances, like this example in c#:
public class SomeClass
{
private string stringvar = "";
public SomeClass(string stringvar)
{
this.stringvar = stringvar;
}
}
If you use StyleCop with all the rules on, it makes you put the this. in. Since I started using it I find my code is more readable, but that's personal preference.
I think this is a non-issue, because it only adds more readability to the code which is a good thing.
For some languages, like PHP, it is even mandatory to prefix with $this-> if you need to use class fields or methods.
I don't like the fact that it makes some lines unnecessarily longer than they could be, if PHP had some way to reference class members without it.
I personally find that this.whatever is less readable. You may not notice the difference in a 2-line method, but wait until you get this.variable and this.othervariable everywhere in a class.
Furthermore, I think that use of this. was found as a replacement for a part of the much hated Hungarian notation. Some people out there found out that it's still clearer for the reader to see that a variable is a class member, and this. did the trick. But why fool ourselves and not use the plain old "m_" or simply "_" for that, if we need the extra clarity? It's 5 characters vs. 2 (or even 1). Less typing, same result.
Having said that, the choice of style is still a matter of personal preference. It's hard to convince somebody used to read code in a certain way that is useful to change it.
well, eclipse does color fields, arguments and local variables in different colors, so at least working in eclipse environment there is no need to syntactically distinguish fields in order to specially mark them as "fields" for yourself and generations to come.
It was asked before indeed, in the "variable in java" context:
Do you prefix your instance variable with ‘this’ in java ?
The main recurrent reason seems to be:
"it increases the visual noise you need to sift through to find the meaning of the code."
Readability, in other word... which I do not buy, I find this. very useful.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Using 'this' can make the code nicer, and I can see no problems with it. Policies like that is stupid (at least when you don't even tell people why they are in place).
as for me i use this to call methods of an instantiated object whereas self is for a static method
In VB.NET one of the common practice I use is the following code :
Class Test
Private IntVar AS Integer
Public Function New(intVar As Integer)
Me.Intvar = intvar
End Function
End Class
Not all the time but mostly Me / this / self is quite useful. Clarifies the scope that you are talking.
In a typical setter method (taken from lagerdalek's answer):
string name;
public void SetName(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
If you didn't use it, the compiler wouldn't know you were referring to the member variable.
The use of this. is to tell the compiler that you need to access a member variable - which is out of the immediate scope of the method. Creating a variable within a method which is the same name as a member variable is perfectly legal, just like overriding a method in a class which has extended another class is perfectly legal.
However, if you still need to use the super class's method, you use super. In my opinion using this. is no worse than using super. and allows the programmer more flexibility in their code.
As far as I'm concerned readability doesn't even come into it, it's all about accessibility of your variables.
In the end it's always a matter of personal choice. Personally, I use this coding convention:
public class Foo
{
public string Bar
{
get
{
return this.bar;
}
/*set
{
this.bar = value;
}*/
}
private readonly string bar;
public Foo(string bar)
{
this.bar = bar;
}
}
So for me "this" is actually necessary to keep the constructor readable.
Edit: the exact same example has been posted by "sinje" while I was writing the code above.
Not only do I frequently use "this". I sometimes use "that".
class Foo
{
private string bar;
public int Compare(Foo that)
{
if(this.bar == that.bar)
{
...
And so on. "That" in my code usually means another instance of the same class.
'this.' in code always suggests to me that the coder has used intellisense (or other IDE equivalents) to do their heavy lifting.
I am certainly guilty of this, however I do, for purely vanity reasons, remove them afterwards.
The only other reasons I use them are to qualify an ambiguous variable (bad practice) or build an extension method
Qualifying a variable
string name; //should use something like _name or m_name
public void SetName(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}