I need to build a grammer containing a cross reference, which may be invalid, i.e. points to a nonexisting target. A file containing such a reference should not yield an error, but only a warning. The generator would handle this as as a special case.
How can I do this with XText?
It's not possible to create valid cross references to non-existing targets in EMF.
I would suggest to go with EAttributes instead of EReferences:
Change the feature=[EClass|ID] by feature=ID in {YourDSL} grammar.
Provide a scope calculation utility like it's done in *scope_EClass_feature(context, reference)* method in the {YourDSL}ScopeProvider class. As this scoping methods simply use the eType of the given reference the reimplementation should be straightforward.
Use this scope calculation utility in {YourDSL}ProposalProvider to propose values for the introduced EAttribute.
Optionally you can use this utility in a validation rule to add a warning/info to this EAttribute if it's not "valid".
Finally use the utility in your generator to create output based on valid target eObjects.
I also ran into this problem when creating a DSL to provide declerations of variables for a none-declerative language for a transition pahse. This method works but ask yourself if you realy want to have those nasty may-references.
You can drop the auto generated error in you UI module only. To do so, provide an ILinkingDiagnosticMessageProvider and override the function getUnresolvedProxyMessage:
class DSLLinkingDiagnosticMessageProvider extends LinkingDiagnosticMessageProvider {
override getUnresolvedProxyMessage(ILinkingDiagnosticContext context) {
if(context.context instanceof YourReference) {
// return null so the your error is left out
null
} else {
// use super implementation for others
super.getUnresolvedProxyMessage(context)
}
}
}
All linker-errors for YourReference will be missed. But be aware that there will be a dummy referenced object with all fealds null. Exspecialy the name ist lost and you can not set it due to a CyclicLinkingException. But you may create a new method that sets the name directly.
Note that the dummy object will have the type you entered in your gramma. If its abstract you can easily check witch reference is not linked.
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
I have a Groovy script that lets the user define some dynamic properties and methods and later executes a user-defined closure. A script would look like this:
// init properties and methods dynamically at runtime
context.prop1 = "Some test value"
context.method1 = { String input ->
"exec " + input.toUpperCase()
}
// "this" is set to the context variable from above
run {
println method1( prop1 )
}
So in the beginning of the script, a context is initialized with user-defined properties (e.g. prop1) and methods (e.g. method1). The context is then used as this pointer in the run closure. I have achieved this by dynamically extending the meta class of the context and setting the context as delegate of the run closure (with DELEGATE_FIRST as resolves strategy).
Currently I am struggling at type checking. Before executing the run closure, I would like to check if method1 really expects prop1. I have looked into the DelegatesTo annotation, but that doesn't seem to work for dynamically extended objects. I have also played with the AST, but since my knowledge on that topic is limited, I haven't come up with a solution. If what I want to achieve is possible, any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
You want to add a method to a context at runtime and then type check this before execution of that method.
Type checking is done at compile time. That is before anything of your program is executed. There is normally no chance this can ever check anything that will only happen at runtime, unless you have a way to statically declare it and give the compiler the power to do the check. But this means normally, you will have to do static compilation.
One way would be to use type checking extensions, but I think in your case that might be overkill. A more simple way would be to use extension modules. And the most simple way would be to use custom script base class.
But for any of these solution you will need static compilation to really have type checking, same for DelegatesTo (which is more used in combination with extension modules). For a type checked DSL a mix of type checking extensions and extension modules can work very well. But you will of course loose more dynamic features of the language and some simplicity.
I am making a simple debugger window in ActionScript for myself where I can add and remove variables I want to track. I was to be able to add variables to the list by just doing something like
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar(variable).
My question is, is there any way I can turn "variable" itself (the name, not the value) into a String to be added into a text field?
Depending on how "intelligent" your debugger should be, you could just pass the name along:
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar( variable, "variable" );
since obviously, when used in a context like this, the name should be known at the time you are writing the program.
You can also do some reflection magic to get instance variable names, but it won't work for temp variables (their names are dropped at compilation time):
public function getVariableName( instance:*, match:* ):String {
var typeDescription:XML = describeType( instance );
var variables:XMLList = typeDescription..variable;
var accessors:XMLList = typeDescription..accessor;
for each(var variable:XML in variables)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, variable, match ))
return variable.#name;
for each(var accessor:XML in accessors)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, accessor, match ))
return accessor.#name;
return "No name found.";
}
private function matchesXMLName( instance:*, xml:XML, match:* ):Boolean {
return match == instance[xml.#name.toString()];
}
var varName:String = getVariableName ( myObject, variable );
Using reflections like this will also be quite costly, if used often - you will have to think of a way to cache the type descriptions.
I recommend you check out the as3commons reflections package - there is a lot of useful functionality in there...
Short answer - No :(
You can access the type name but not individual instance names, as these are lost at run-time.
There is a confusion caused by the keyword 'var' because it is used to create several types of bindings.
Lexical bindings (the keyword 'var' was used inside a function).
Dynamic bindings (the keyword 'var' was used to declare a class' field).
Lexical bindings are interpreted by the compiler at compile time as addresses of the registers of the registers space occupied by the function. The names given to lexical bindings perish at this time and it is not possible to restore them at runtime - therefore you can't get the "name" of the variable.
Dynamic bindings are a kind of "public API" of the objects that declare them, they may be accessed from the code that was not compiled together with the code that created them, this is why, for the purpose of reflection the names of these bindings are stored in compiled code. However, ActionScript has no way of referencing LHS values, so you cannot, even if you know the name of the variable and the object declaring it, pass it to another function. But you can look it up in the debugger or by calling describeType on the object declaring the variable. Note that describeType will not show information on private variables even if you are calling it from the scope of the object in question.
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).
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.