I have a question about scoping rules in Groovy. In the following snippet, I have three variables, a has local scope, b has script scope, and c should get script scope as well using the #Field annotation.
#!/usr/bin/groovy
import groovy.transform.Field;
//println org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.InvokerHelper.getVersion()
def a = 42;
b = "Tea"
#Field def c = "Cheese"
void func()
{
// println a // MissingPropertyException
println b // prints "Tea"
println c // prints "Cheese" with groovy 2.1.2, MissingPropertyException with groovy 1.8.6
}
class Main
{
def method()
{
// println a // MissingPropertyException
// println b // MissingPropertyException
// println c // MissingPropertyException with both 1.8.6. and 2.1.2
}
}
func();
new Main().method();
I get MissingPropertyExceptions on the lines indicated with comments. The exceptions on a are expected, as that variable has local scope. But I would expect b to be accessible inside method() - it isn't.
#Field doesn't do anything in groovy 1.8.6, although after upgrading it works, so I guess that is an old bug. Nevertheless, c is inaccessible inside method() with either version.
So my questions are:
Why can't I access a variable annotated with #Field inside
method()?
How can I refer to a script variable inside method()?
When you have methods or statements outside of a class declaration in a groovy script, an implicit class is created. To answer your questions:
In your example, func() can access the field c because they are both members of the implicit class. The Main class is not, so it can't.
You need to pass a reference to the script variable to method(). One way is to pass the implicitly defined binding object, through which you can access all the script scope variables.
Example:
#!/usr/bin/groovy
import groovy.transform.Field;
//println org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.InvokerHelper.getVersion()
def a = 42;
b = "Tea"
#Field def c = "Cheese"
void func()
{
// println a // MissingPropertyException
println b // prints "Tea"
println c // prints "Cheese" with groovy 2.1.2, MissingPropertyException with groovy 1.8.6
}
class Main
{
def scriptObject
def binding
def method()
{
// println a // MissingPropertyException
println binding.b
println scriptObject.c
}
}
func();
new Main(scriptObject: this, binding: binding).method();
This script and Main are generated as two separate classes inside the same file.
As Main is not an internal class of the Script class, it cannot see the java.lang.Object c field inside the script class.
You would either have to explicitly wrap this script in a class with a static main( args ) method (and an internal Main class) or you would need to pass an instance of the script class to the method like: Main.method( this )
This is the sort of thing that the above script generates:
class Script032034034 {
Object c
Script032034034() {
c = 'Cheese'
}
Object run() {
Object a = 42
b = 'Tea'
func()
new Main().method()
}
void func() {
println b
println c
}
}
class Main {
Object method() {
}
}
Related
I know that this is what closures are for, but shouldn't the below work as well?:
def f = 'foo'
def foo() {
println(f)
}
foo()
It results in:
Caught: groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: f for class: bar
groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: f for class: bar
at bar.foo(bar.groovy:4)
at bar.run(bar.groovy:7)
In a groovy script (as opposed to class), your code is essentially equivalent to:
class ScriptName {
def main(args) {
new ScriptName().run(args)
}
def run(args) {
def f = 'foo'
foo()
}
def foo() {
println(f)
}
}
the 'implicit' enclosing class created by groovy for groovy scripts is always present but not visible in your code. The above makes it obvious why the foo method does not see the f variable.
You have a couple of options
option 1 - binding
See the groovy docs on script bindings for details.
// put the variable in the script binding
f = 'foo'
this is shorthand for:
binding.setVariable('f', 'foo')
where the script binding is visible everywhere for groovy scripts and this makes the variable essentially 'global'.
option 2 - #Field annotation
See groovy docs on the Field annotation for details.
import groovy.transform.Field
...
// use the groovy.transform.Field annotation
#Field f = 'foo'
the Field annotation is specifically there to give groovy scripts the ability to add fields to the 'implicit' enclosing class. The generated class would then look something like the following:
class ScriptName {
def f = 'foo'
def main(args) {
new ScriptName().run(args)
}
def run(args) {
foo()
}
def foo() {
println(f)
}
}
which also essentially makes the variable accessible 'globally' in the script.
I have a class something like this
class SomeClass () {
Closure instClos
SomeClass (Closure clos) { instClos = clos} //constructor
def call() {instClos()}
}
what i'd like to be able to do is do implicit Class constructor like this
SomeClass myInst = {println "hello there}
myInst()
but that doesn't work and throws cast exception. you can make this work by writing [] round the closure to call the constructor. but its not pretty
SomeClass myInst = [{println "hello there}] // or myInst = new ({println "hello there}
myInst()
is there a nice way to create the object through assignment and have that closure stored automatically on the created class instance?
feel i'm missing some groovy syntax here that would sort this (PS i'd prefer not having to extend Closure if i can avoid that )
based on the input provided so far i provided an extended script to show the various options. I tried to add an asType closure to Closure and try and call {...} as SomeClass - but if i tried that the asType is never called so groovy must be using another mechanism when you try a coercion
class SomeClass {
Closure instClos
SomeClass (Closure clos) {
println "\tSomeClass constructor: Will constructor called"
instClos = clos
}
def call() {
println "\tSomeClass.call: calling closure "
return (instClos() + "!")
}
SomeClass asType (Closure clos) {
new SomeClass (instClos: clos)
}
}
//this will call the map constructor - needs to be explicitly provided
SomeClass me = [{println "map style construction"; "echo"}]
assert me() == "echo!"
//use new to get class instance with constructor
me = new SomeClass ({println "new SomeClass () construction"; "echo"})
assert me() == "echo!"
//using layered closure approach - doesnt read well though
def someClos = {new SomeClass(it)}
def c = someClos {println "trying layered closure ";"echo"}
assert c() == "echo!"
//extending the Closure class to add a method
ExpandoMetaClass.enableGlobally()
Closure.metaClass.some = {
if (it == SomeClass) {
new SomeClass (delegate)
}
}
//this will call .some() on closure
me = {println "hello will using .some() "; "echo"}.some ( SomeClass)
assert me() == "echo!"
I'm not aware of anyway to auto-coerce a closure. Even though groovy has closure coercion, it works by changing the closure's type, but it's still a closure, and is not layered. Some ideas:
1. Constructor
class SomeClass {
Closure instClos
SomeClass (Closure clos) { instClos = clos} //constructor
def call() {instClos() + "!"}
}
def c = new SomeClass( { "echo" } )
assert c() == "echo!"
2. Map constructor
class SomeClass {
Closure instClos
def call() {instClos() + "!"}
}
SomeClass c = [instClos: { "echo" }]
assert c() == "echo!"
3. Closure metaprogramming
(Needs enableGlobally())
ExpandoMetaClass.enableGlobally()
Closure.metaClass.some = { new SomeClass(delegate) }
def c = { "echo" }.some()
assert c() == "echo!"
4. Another closure layering
class SomeClass {
Closure instClos
SomeClass (Closure clos) { instClos = clos} //constructor
def call() {instClos() + "!"}
}
def some = { new SomeClass(it) }
def c = some { "echo" }
assert c() == "echo!"
5. Override Closure's asType
ExpandoMetaClass.enableGlobally()
def asType = Closure.metaClass.asType
Closure.metaClass.asType = { Class c ->
(c == SomeClass) ? new SomeClass(delegate) : asType(c)
}
def c = { "echo" } as SomeClass
assert c() == "echo!"
If you have enough flexibility in your design you TRULY only need one method, SomeClass.call(), then you could specify it as an interface instead:
interface SomeClass {
def call()
}
Groovy long ago anticipated the case that Java 8 formalizes with the #FunctionalInterface annotation. If you assign a Groovy Closure to variable or formal parameter of interface type, where the interface has only one method (like SomeClass as defined above), the Groovy compiler will coerce the closure into an instance of that interface. So, given the interface declaration above, the following code:
SomeClass myInst = { println "hello there" }
myInst()
prints "hello there".
Is there a way to access global variable, declared in the script, from the static method of the class, declared in the same script?
For example
def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println s
}
}
Because that way it fails with the error
You attempted to reference a variable in the binding or an instance variable from a static context
which is expected though.
There is a related discussion at this question:
Groovy scope - how to access script variable in a method
Related in that both questions refer to using a global variable within a class, but this question differs somewhat in that you are seeking to use a static method which alters how you pass the script instance or binding (2 choices).
Passing the Script's Instance
import groovy.transform.Field
#Field def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method(si) {
return si.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(this) == "12345"
Passing the Script's binding
s = "12345" // NOTE: no 'def'
class MyClass {
static def method(b) {
return b.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(binding) == "12345"
Well, the problem is that in Groovy there is no such thing as a global variable. What is loosely considered a global variable is actually a static property within some class.
For example, if you remove the println line so that the code compiles, you get something like this out of the compiler:
public class script1455567284805 extends groovy.lang.Script {
...
public java.lang.Object run() {
return java.lang.Object s = '12345'
}
...
}
public class MyClass implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject extends java.lang.Object {
...
public static java.lang.Object method() {
// This is where the println would have been.
return null
}
...
}
As you can see, an additional class is created and the the s variable is declared within the method run() of that class. This makes the variable inaccessible to your other class.
Note: Removing the def will not address this issue.
Solution
Your best bet is to place your "global variables" into a class, possibly as static properties, like this:
class Global {
static Object S = "12345"
}
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println Global.S
}
}
You included a variable type with the s variable (by using the def type). In a Groovy script, this is treated as a local variable - and local to the run() method that is generated - which is kind of like a main() class. As a result, the variable is not available in other methods or classes.
If you remove the def you will be able to make use of the s variable.
Here is the Groovy documentation that explains this further.
I have a closure within an object Foo and inside the closure i define a method called 'myStaticMethod' that I want to resolve once the closure is called outside the object Foo. I also happen to have 'on purpose' a static method within my object Foo with the same name. When I call the closure i set the 'resolve strategy' to DELEGATE_ONLY to intercept the call to myStaticMethod that is defined within the closure.
I tried to achieve that through missingMethod but the method is never intercepted. When i make the Foo.myStaticMethod non static, the method is intercepted. I don't quite understand why this is happening though my resolve strategy is set to DELEGATE_ONLY. having the Foo.myStaticMethod static or not shouldn't matter or I am missing something
class Foo {
static myclosure = {
myStaticMethod()
}
static def myStaticMethod() {}
}
class FooTest {
def c = Foo.myclosure
c.resolveStrategy = Closure.DELEGATE_ONLY
c.call()
def missingMethod(String name, def args) {
println $name
}
}
To solve the problem, I ended up overriding the invokeMethod right before calling the closure in FooTests
Foo.metaClass.'static'.invokeMethod = { String name, args ->
println "Static Builder processing $name "
}
While trying to solve this problem, i discovered a very weird way to intercept missing static methods. Might be useful to some of you in the future.
static $static_methodMissing(String name, args) {
println "Missing static $name"
}
-Ken
Static methods unfortunately aren't intercepted by the closure property resolution. The only way that I know to intercept those is to override the static metaClass invokeMethod on the class that owns the closure, ex:
class Foo {
static myclosure = {
myStaticMethod()
}
static myStaticMethod() {
return false
}
}
Foo.metaClass.'static'.invokeMethod = { String name, args ->
println "in static invokeMethod for $name"
return true
}
def closure = Foo.myclosure
assert true == closure()
I am trying to take advantage of the convenience of groovy's scripting syntax to assign properties, but having trouble with a specific case. I must be missing something simple here. I define class A, B, C as so:
class A {
A() {
println "Constructed class A!"
}
}
class B {
B() {
println "Constructed class B!"
}
}
class C {
private member
C() {
println "Constructed class C!"
}
def setMember(A a) {
println "Called setMember(A)!"
member = a
}
def setMember(B b) {
println "Called setMember(B)!"
member = b
}
}
And then try the following calls in a script:
c = new C()
c.setMember(new A()) // works
c.member = new A() // works
c.setMember(new B()) // works
c.member = new B() // doesn't work!
The last assignment results in an error: 'Cannot cast object of class B to class A". Why doesn't it call the proper setMember method for class B like it does for class A?
The shortcut of using the dot notation for calling a property's setter method doesn't do type checking. Instead it seems to use the first entry in the list of methods with a given name and invoke it.
You can also read Pyrasun's extended comments on the shortcomings of Groovy's property handling.
If you want to bypass this (mis)behavior you have to call the setter directly, as Groovy supports type checking for method calls. Alternatively you could also access the field directly without a setter using
c.#member = new B()
or you do the type checking on your own in a single setter method:
def setMember(def param) {
if (param instanceof A) println "Called setMember(A)!"
if (param instanceof B) println "Called setMember(B)!"
member = param
}