I have the current method example:
public void MethodName(string param1,int param2)
{
object[] obj = new object[] { (object) param1, (object) param2 };
//Code to that uses this array to invoke dynamic methods
}
Is there a dynamic way (I am guessing using reflection) that will get the current executing method parameter values and place them in a object array? I have read that you can get parameter information using MethodBase and MethodInfo but those only have information about the parameter and not the value it self which is what I need.
So for example if I pass "test" and 1 as method parameters without coding for the specific parameters can I get a object array with two indexes { "test", 1 }?
I would really like to not have to use a third party API, but if it has source code for that API then I will accept that as an answer as long as its not a huge API and there is no simple way to do it without this API.
I am sure there must be a way, maybe using the stack, who knows. You guys are the experts and that is why I come here.
Thank you in advance, I can't wait to see how this is done.
EDIT
It may not be clear so here some extra information. This code example is just that, an example to show what I want. It would be to bloated and big to show the actual code where it is needed but the question is how to get the array without manually creating one. I need to some how get the values and place them in a array without coding the specific parameters.
Using reflection you can extract the parameters name and metadata but not the actual values :
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program p = new Program();
p.testMethod("abcd", 1);
Console.ReadLine();
}
public void testMethod(string a, int b)
{
System.Diagnostics.StackTrace st = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace();
StackFrame sf = st.GetFrame(0);
ParameterInfo[] pis = sf.GetMethod().GetParameters();
foreach (ParameterInfo pi in pis)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(pi.Name);
}
}
}
Related
I've been struggling with this for a few days now, and I'm still not clear on the correct approach. I've seen many examples online, but each one does it differently. The options I see are:
Pass only primitive values
Pass the complete model
Pass new instances of value objects that refer to changes in the domain/model
Create a specific DTO/object for each event with the data.
This is what I am currently doing, but it doesn't convince me. The example is in PHP, but I think it's perfectly understandable.
MyModel.php
class MyModel {
//...
private MediaId $id;
private Thumbnails $thumbnails;
private File $file;
//...
public function delete(): void
{
$this->record(
new MediaDeleted(
$this->id->asString(),
[
'name' => $this->file->name(),
'thumbnails' => $this->thumbnails->toArray(),
]
)
);
}
}
MediaDeleted.php
final class MediaDeleted extends AbstractDomainEvent
{
public function name(): string
{
return $this->payload()['name'];
}
/**
* #return array<ThumbnailArray>
*/
public function thumbnails(): array
{
return $this->payload()['thumbnails'];
}
}
As you can see, I am passing the ID as a string, the filename as a string, and an array of the Thumbnail value object's properties to the MediaDeleted event.
How do you see it? What type of data is preferable to pass to domain events?
Updated
The answer of #pgorecki has convinced me, so I will put an example to confirm if this way is correct, in order not to change too much.
It would now look like this.
public function delete(): void
{
$this->record(
new MediaDeleted(
$this->id,
new MediaDeletedEventPayload($this->file->copy(), $this->thumbnail->copy())
)
);
}
I'll explain a bit:
The ID of the aggregate is still outside the DTO, because MediaDeleted extends an abstract class that needs the ID parameter, so now the only thing I'm changing is the $payload array for the MediaDeletedEventPayload DTO, to this DTO I'm passing a copy of the value objects related to the change in the domain, in this way I'm passing objects in a reliable way and not having strange behaviours if I pass the same instance.
What do you think about it?
A domain event is simply a data-holding structure or class (DTO), with all the information related to what just happened in the domain, and no logic. So I'd say Create a specific DTO/object for each event with the data. is the best choice. Why don't you start with the less is more approach? - think about the consumers of the event, and what data might they need.
Also, being able to serialize and deserialize the event objects is a good practice, since you could want to send them via a message broker (although this relates more to integration events than domain events).
For my JUnit Tests with Mockito, I am doing the following:
Mockito.lenient().when(tokenService.create(String id, Any)).thenReturn(new String (id))
Mockito.lenient().when(voucherRepo.findById(id String).thenReturn(new Voucher(id));
I would like to access the String id given to tokenService.create() and voucherRepo.findById() methods, create and then return mock objects using it. How it can be done?
Mockito.when(voucherRepo.findById(id)).thenReturn(new Voucher(id));
Your solution should work and is probably the preferred solution for any clear defined test.
As you know in your test what the exact id is, you can just return the specific object for it.
Another way to do this - for arbitrary strings - is using mockito's thenAnswer funtionality:
Mockito.when(voucherRepo.findById(Mockito.any(String.class))).thenAnswer(new Answer<Voucher>() {
#Override
public Voucher answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
String id = (String) args[0];
return new Voucher(id);
}
});
I am not sure what reason you have to do that in your test (as this a rather arbitrary defintion), but in doubt consider adding some more context to your question.
hi does anyone encountered this error? everytime I use PXSelect on a foreach loop in which on the other source code does but on my code does not, could anyone identify the cause? the code below is also the the original source code from Acumatica but I only changed the Datamember from PaymentCharges to OtherCharges
[PXOverride]
public void VoidCheckProc(ARPayment doc)
{
foreach (PXResult<ARPaymentChargeTran> paycharge in PXSelect<ARPaymentChargeTran, Where<ARPaymentChargeTran.docType, Equal<Required<ARPayment.docType>>, And<ARPaymentChargeTran.refNbr, Equal<Required<ARPayment.refNbr>>>>>.
Select(this, doc.DocType, doc.RefNbr))
{
ARPaymentChargeTran charge = PXCache<ARPaymentChargeTran>.CreateCopy((ARPaymentChargeTran)paycharge);
charge.DocType = Document.Current.DocType;
charge.CuryTranAmt = -1 * charge.CuryTranAmt;
charge.Released = false;
charge.CuryInfoID = Document.Current.CuryInfoID;
charge.CashTranID = null;
//PaymentCharges.Insert(charge);
OtherCharges.Insert(charge);
}
}
I believe, you are writing this method in an extension for the base BLC
So instead of using 'this', use 'this.Base'
The Select method is non-static, as the error message says, but you call it on the PXSelect<...>-type. You need to have an instance of that type.
Based on Hybridzz answer, I assume you used the wrong overload of the Select-method. Probably your arguments do not have the correct type, so the compiler selects the best fitting overload of the method. In this case, it selects the one accepting only the argument params object[] o, which is non-static. A bit misleasing design of the API you use.
I have the following code:
private void Example(Func<string,int> myDelegate)
{
int length = myDelegate(RECEIVEDSTRING).; //How to access received string??
}
When I execute the method : Example(x=>"Hello".Length); How can I access to the string "Hello" inside the method Example?
Thanks.
Regards.
Jose.
That is not how you should be processing this delegate. It takes an input parameter and Example needs to know some details about the input parameter in order to execute the delegate. Here Example "acts" as an interface to external code and that external code MUST provide their own implementation.
If Example needs to execute the delegate then it needs to provide the REQUIRED string parameter. IMHO, Example needs to provide a second parameter in its signature as below...
private void Example(string s, Func<string,int> myDelegate)
{
int length = myDelegate(s);
}
Then external code can provide is own implementation and parameter...
Example("Hello", x => { return x.Length; });
What you are trying to do is not possible in C#, the delegate needs to an explicit context to run, that context is the string input parameter.
Hope it makes sense
I have an interesting need for an extension method on the IEumerable interface - the same thing as List.ConvertAll. This has been covered before here and I found one solution here. What I don't like about that solution is he builds a List to hold the converted objects and then returns it. I suspect LINQ wasn't available when he wrote his article, so my implementation is this:
public static class IEnumerableExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<TOutput> ConvertAll<T, TOutput>(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Func<T, TOutput> converter)
{
if (null == converter)
throw new ArgumentNullException("converter");
return from item in collection
select converter(item);
}
}
What I like better about this is I convert 'on the fly' without having to load the entire list of whatever TOutput's are. Note that I also changed the type of the delegate - from Converter to Func. The compilation is the same but I think it makes my intent clearer - I don't mean for this to be ONLY type conversion.
Which leads me to my question: In my repository layer I have a lot of queries that return lists of ID's - ID's of entities. I used to have several classes that 'converted' these ID's to entities in various ways. With this extension method I am able to boil all that down to code like this:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.ConvertAll<Part>(PartRepository.Find);
}
where the 'converter' is really the repository's Find-by-ID method. In my case, the 'converter' is potentially doing quite a bit. Does anyone see any problems with this approach?
The main issue I see with this approach is it's completely unnecessary.
Your ConvertAll method is nothing different than Enumerable.Select<TSource,TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource>, Func<TSource,TResult>), which is a standard LINQ operator. There's no reason to write an extension method for something that already is in the framework.
You can just do:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.Select<int,Part>(PartRepository.Find);
}
Note: your method would require <int,Part> as well to compile, unless PartRepository.Find only works on int, and only returns Part instances. If you want to avoid that, you can probably do:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.Select(i => PartRepository.Find<Part>(i)); // I'm assuming that fits your "Find" syntax...
}
Why not utilize the yield keyword (and only convert each item as it is needed)?
public static class IEnumerableExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<TOutput> ConvertAll<T, TOutput>
(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Func<T, TOutput> converter)
{
if(null == converter)
throw new ArgumentNullException("converter");
foreach(T item in collection)
yield return converter(item);
}
}