I have a function,
public static IPagedResponse<T> GetPagedResponse<T, TAnon>(
this IQueryable<TAnon> query,
QueryableRequestMessage request)
where T : class
{
//...
}
I'm trying to pass query as an IQueryable of an anonymous type.
var query = _repository.All.Select(
i => new //anon type
{
i.Id,
i.Name,
}
);
var result = query.GetPagedResponse<EftInterfaceDto, ??????>(request);
The issue is I don't know what to put in place of ??????? It can't seem to infer it. And any combinations using .GetType() or typeof() I have tried, failed.
I tried changing the function to be IQueryable<dynamic> but that resulted in other errors, about dynamic not being allowed in Expression trees.
HACK:
I can make it work if I change my function to this:
public static IPagedResponse<T> GetPagedResponse<T, TAnon>(
this IQueryable<TAnon> query,
QueryableRequestMessage request,
T typeSample)
where T : class
{
//...
}
And then pass in an instance of T
var result = query.GetPagedResponse(request, new SomeClassOfT());
This way, I can use type inference to determine the anonymous type TAnon, and don't need to be explicit in the call to the generic (no <types> required).
However, I don't want to do this, as it's clearly not clear what I'm doing.
Related
I need to get types from an interface by doing something like below, but I need to do it inside a function. Is there any way to do this using typescript generics?
I need the function to pass request bodies, along with an interface specifying their types and verify that the request body has the necessary items as well as correct format.
Note: I am using tsoa with express, so any other library or technique to properly validate request bodies would be fine.
interface someInterface {
foo: string;
bar: number;
}
const testObject: someInterface = req.body;
verifyObject(testObject);
/*
ensure foo and bar are of correct type, length etc.
(I will verify types, I just need a way of
getting the interface keys in a reusable function.)
*/
function verifyObject<T>(obj: T): void {
class temp implements T {} // does not work
const keys = Object.keys(new temp());
// use keys
}
You almost have it - made a generic function, so its param will be the object of the Interface, and accessing keys of the object is, well, you know it:
function verifyObject<T>(obj: T): void {
const keys = Object.keys(obj);
}
verifyObject<someInterface>(someObj);
I'm still quite new to typescript, so please be gentle with me if I'm doing something with no sense for this technology!
The problem that I'm trying to solve is having a dynamic way to define how my application errors should be structured, but leaving to the users the faculty to enrich the messages.
So I tried to create this logic in a module that could be extended easily from the application, but I'm currently facing the problem:
Error:(35, 18) TS2349: Cannot invoke an expression whose type lacks a call signature. Type 'ErrorMessage' has no compatible call signatures.
What I thought it was a good idea (but please tell me if I'm wrong), was to use a register and a map to have the possibility to extend this mapping every time I want. So I created my ErrorMessage interface to be like the following:
export interface ErrorMessage {
actionMessage: string;
actionSubject: string;
originalErrorMessage?: string;
toString: () => string;
}
and a register for these, called ErrorResponseRegister, as it follows:
export enum defaultErrors {
ExceptionA = 'ExceptionA',
ExceptionB = 'ExceptionB',
}
export class ErrorResponseRegister {
private mapping: Map<string, ErrorMessage>;
constructor() {
this.mapping = new Map()
.set(defaultErrors.ExceptionA, exceptionAErrorMessage)
.set(defaultErrors.ExceptionB, exceptionBErrorMessage);
}
}
So at the end, every ErrorMessage function should look like:
export function exceptionAErrorMessage(originalErrorMessage?: string): ErrorMessage {
return {
enrichment1: "Something happened",
enrichment2: "in the application core",
originalErrorMessage: originalErrorMessage,
toString(): string {
return `${this.enrichment1} ${this.enrichment2}. Original error message: ${originalErrorMessage}`;
},
};
}
Please note I haven't used classes for this ones, as it doesn't really need to be instantiated
and I can have a bunch of them where the toString() method can vary. I just want to enforce the errors should have an enrichment1 and enrichment2 that highlight the problem in a better way for not-technical people.
So, now, back to code. When I'm trying to use the exceptionAErrorMessage statically, I can't see any problem:
console.log(exceptionAErrorMessage(originalErrorMessage).toString())
But when I try dynamically, using the map defined in the ErrorResponseRegister, something weird happens:
// In ErrorResponseRegister
public buildFor(errorType: string, originalErrorMessage?: string): Error {
const errorMessageBuilder = this.mapping.get(errorType);
if (errorMessageBuilder) {
return errorMessageBuilder(originalErrorMessage).toString();
}
return "undefined - do something else";
}
The code works as expected, the error returned is in the right format, so the toString function is executed correctly.
BUT, the following error appears in the IDE:
Error:(32, 18) TS2349: Cannot invoke an expression whose type lacks a call signature. Type 'ErrorMessage' has no compatible call signatures.
The line that causes the problem is
errorMessageBuilder(originalPosErrorMessage).toString()
Can someone help me to understand what I'm doing wrong?
It looks like your problem is you've mistyped mapping... it doesn't hold ErrorMessage values; it holds (x?: string)=>ErrorMessage values:
private mapping: Map<string, (x?: string) => ErrorMessage>;
What's unfortunate is that you initialize this variable via new Map().set(...) instead of the using an iterable constructor argument.
The former returns a Map<any, any> which is trivially assignable to mapping despite the mistyping. That is, you ran smack into this known issue where the standard library's typings for the no-argument Map constructor signature produces Map<any, any> which suppresses all kinds of otherwise useful error messages. Perhaps that will be fixed one day, but for now I'd suggest instead that you use the iterable constructor argument, whose type signature declaration will infer reasonable types for the keys/values:
constructor() {
this.mapping = new Map([
[defaultErrors.ExceptionA, exceptionAErrorMessage],
[defaultErrors.ExceptionB, exceptionBErrorMessage]
]); // inferred as Map<defaultErrors, (orig?: string)=>ErrorMessage>
}
If you had done so, it would have flagged the assignment as an error with your original typing for mapping (e.g., Type 'Map<defaultErrors, (originalErrorMessage?: string | undefined) => ErrorMessage>' is not assignable to type 'Map<string, ErrorMessage>'.) Oh well!
Once you make those changes, things should behave more reasonably for you. Hope that helps; good luck!
Link to code
I'm trying to write my own boolean "abstract" with some additional functions.
#forward
abstract MyBool(Bool) {
public inline function new(b:Bool) {
this = b;
}
#:from
public static inline function fromBool(b:Bool):MyBool {
return new MyBool(b);
}
#:to
public inline function toBool():Bool {
return this;
}
// some additional functions
}
In principal this works fine:
var t:T = true;
if(t) {
trace("1");
}
t.someStrangeMethod();
However #:forward does not forward basic boolean-operators like "!":
var f:T = false;
if(!f) { // fails here, because "!" is not defined as an operator for MyBool ...
trace("2");
}
The error message is "MyBool should be Bool", which I find quite strange because MyBool is an abstract of a Bool with #:forward annotation and there is a #:to-method.
Of course there are some easy workarounds. One could either use:
if(!f.toBool()) {
trace("2");
}
and/or add a function annotated with #:op(!A) to the abstract:
#:op(!A)
public inline function notOp():Bool {
return !this;
}
However I do not like both methods:
I dislike adding #:op(...) to MyBool, because creating a method for each possible operator would require much code (Maybe not with a boolean, but e.g. with an Int, Float, ...).
I dislike using !var.toBool(). If someone has already written quite some code (s)he does not want to go through all of it, when (s)he simply wants to change Bool to a MyBool ... I mean of course (s)he could also cast Bool to MyBool whenever adding new code, but that can be horrible too.
So I was wondering if anyone has a better idea? Is there maybe another "#:forward"-like compiling metadata, I do not know about yet?
There's an open feature request regarding this:
Can #:forward also forward underlying operator overloads? (#5035)
One way to make your code example work is to allow implicit conversions with to Bool. I'm not entirely sure why the equivalent #:to function doesn't work here, as the Haxe Manual states that "Class field casts have the same semantics".
abstract MyBool(Bool) to Bool {
Apart from that, I think the only options is to declare an #:op function for each operator you want to support. If declared without a body, the underlying type's operator will be forwarded:
#:op(!A) function notOp():MyBool;
If your main goal is to just add methods to the Bool type, then perhaps avoid the problem altogether by instead creating a class that adds methods to Bool via static extension (documented in the Haxe manual). This method would eliminate the need for operator forwarding.
How do we use 'inheritance' in Node.JS? I heard that prototype is similar to interfaces in java. But I have no idea how to use it!
Although there are various ways of performing inheritance and OO in javascript, in Node.js you would typically use the built in util.inherits function to create a constructor which inherits from another.
See http://book.mixu.net/ch6.html for a good discussion on this subject.
for example:
var util = require("util");
var events = require("events");
function MyOwnClass() {
// ... your code.
}
util.inherits(MyOwnClass, events.EventEmitter);
Creating an object constructor in pure JS:
They're just functions like any other JS function but invoked with the new keyword.
function Constructor(){ //constructors are typically capitalized
this.public = function(){ alert(private); }
var private = "Untouchable outside of this func scope.";
}
Constructor.static = function(){ alert('Callable as "Constructor.static()"'); }
var instance = new Constructor();
Inheritance:
function SubConstructor(){
this.anotherMethod(){ alert('nothing special'); }
}
function SubConstructor.prototype = new Constructor();
var instance = new SubConstructor();
instance.public(); //alerts that private string
The key difference is that prototypal inheritance comes from objects, rather than the things that build them.
One disadvantage is that there's no pretty way to write something that makes inheritance of instance vars like private possible.
The whopping gigantor mega-advantage, however, is that we can mess with the prototype without impacting the super constructor, changing a method or property for every object even after they've been built. This is rarely done in practice in higher-level code since it would make for an awfully confusing API but it can be handy for under-the-hood type stuff where you might want to share a changing value across a set of instances without just making it global.
The reason we get this post-instantiated behavior is because JS inheritance actually operates on a lookup process where any method call runs up the chain of instances and their constructor prototype properties until it finds the method called or quits. This can actually get slow if you go absolutely insane with cascading inheritance (which is widely regarded as an anti-pattern anyway).
I don't actually hit prototype specifically for inheritacne a lot myself, instead preferring to build up objects via a more composited approach but it's very handy when you need it and offers a lot of less obvious utility. For instance when you have an object that would be useful to you if only one property were different, but you don't want to touch the original.
var originInstance = {
originValue:'only on origin',
theOneProperty:'that would make this old object useful if it were different'
}
function Pseudoclone(){
this.theOneProperty = "which is now this value";
}
Pseudoclone.prototype = originInstance;
var newInstance = new Psuedoclone();
//accesses originInstance.originValue but its own theOneProperty
There are more modern convenience methods like Object.create but only function constructors give you the option to encapsulate private/instance vars so I tend to favor them since 9 times out of 10 anything not requiring encapsulation will just be an object literal anyway.
Overriding and Call Object Order:
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"undefined"
Note: the parens around the constructor allow it to be defined and evaluated in one spot so I could treat it like an object on the same line.
myMethod is alerting "undefined" because an externally overwritten method is defined outside of the constructor's closure which is what effective makes internal vars private-like. So you can replace the method but you won't have access to what it did.
Now let's do some commenting.
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
//instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"public referencing private"
and...
( function Constructor(){
var private = "public referencing private";
//this.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
} ).prototype = { myMethod:function(){ alert('prototype'); };
var instance = new Constructor();
//instance.myMethod = function(){ alert(private); }
instance.myMethod();//"prototype"
Note that prototype methods also don't have access to that internal private var for the same reason. It's all about whether something was defined in the constructor itself. Note that params passed to the constructor will also effectively be private instance vars which can be handy for doing things like overriding a set of default options.
Couple More Details
It's actually not necessary to use parens when invoking with new unless you have required parameters but I tend to leave them in out of habit (it works to think of them as functions that fire and then leave an object representing the scope of that firing behind) and figured it would be less alien to a Java dev than new Constructor;
Also, with any constructor that requires params, I like to add default values internally with something like:
var param = param || '';
That way you can pass the constructor into convenience methods like Node's util.inherit without undefined values breaking things for you.
Params are also effectively private persistent instance vars just like any var defined in a constructor.
Oh and object literals (objects defined with { key:'value' }) are probably best thought of as roughly equivalent to this:
var instance = new Object();
instance.key = 'value';
With a little help from Coffeescript, we can achieve it much easier.
For e.g.: to extend a class:
class Animal
constructor: (#name) ->
alive: ->
false
class Parrot extends Animal
constructor: ->
super("Parrot")
dead: ->
not #alive()
Static property:
class Animal
#find: (name) ->
Animal.find("Parrot")
Instance property:
class Animal
price: 5
sell: (customer) ->
animal = new Animal
animal.sell(new Customer)
I just take the sample code Classes in CoffeeScript. You can learn more about CoffeeScript at its official site: http://coffeescript.org/
I grabbed System.Linq.Dynamic.DynamicQueryable from here:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
The issue that I am running into is in code that looks like this:
var results = dataContext.GetTable<MyClass>.Select("new (MyClassID, Name, Description)").Take(5);
It appears that if that line of code is executed by multiple threads near simultaneously, Microsoft's dynamic Linq code crashes in their ClassFactory.GetDynamicClass() method, which looks like this:
public Type GetDynamicClass(IEnumerable<DynamicProperty> properties)
{
rwLock.AcquireReaderLock(Timeout.Infinite);
try
{
Signature signature = new Signature(properties);
Type type;
if (!classes.TryGetValue(signature, out type))
{
type = CreateDynamicClass(signature.properties);
classes.Add(signature, type); // <-- crashes over here!
}
return type;
}
finally
{
rwLock.ReleaseReaderLock();
}
}
The crash is a simple dictionary error: "An item with the same key has already been added."
In Ms code, The rwLock variable is a ReadWriterLock class, but it does nothing to block multiple threads from getting inside classes.TryGetValue() if statement, so clearly, the Add will fail.
I can replicate this error pretty easily in any code that creates a two or more threads that try to execute the Select("new") statement.
Anyways, I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this issue, and if there are fixes or workarounds I can implement.
Thanks.
I did the following (requires .NET 4 or later to use System.Collections.Concurrent):
changed the classes field to a ConcurrentDictionary<Signature, Type> ,
removed all the ReaderWriterLock rwLock field and all the code referring to it,
updated GetDynamicClass to:
public Type GetDynamicClass(IEnumerable<DynamicProperty> properties) {
var signature = new Signature(properties);
return classes.GetOrAdd(signature, sig => CreateDynamicClass(sig.properties));
}
removed the classCount field and updated CreateDynamicClass to use classes.Count instead:
Type CreateDynamicClass(DynamicProperty[] properties) {
string typeName = "DynamicClass" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N");
...