There are some other questions on here that are similar but sufficiently different that I need to pose this as a fresh question:
I have created an empty class, lets call it Test. It doesn't have any properties or methods. I then iterate through a map of key/value pairs, dynamically creating properties named for the key and containing the value... like so:
def langMap = [:]
langMap.put("Zero",0)
langMap.put("One",1)
langMap.put("Two",2)
langMap.put("Three",3)
langMap.put("Four",4)
langMap.put("Five",5)
langMap.put("Six",6)
langMap.put("Seven",7)
langMap.put("Eight",8)
langMap.put("Nine",9)
langMap.each { key,val ->
Test.metaClass."${key}" = val
}
Now I can access these from a new method created like this:
Test.metaClass.twoPlusThree = { return Two + Three }
println test.twoPlusThree()
What I would like to do though, is dynamically load a set of instructions from a String, like "Two + Three", create a method on the fly to evaluate the result, and then iteratively repeat this process for however many strings containing expressions that I happen to have.
Questions:
a) First off, is there simply a better and more elegant way to do this (Based on the info I have given) ?
b) Assuming this path is viable, what is the syntax to dynamically construct this closure from a string, where the string references variable names valid only within a method on this class?
Thanks!
I think the correct answer depends on what you're actually trying to do. Can the input string be a more complicated expression, like '(Two + Six) / Four'?
If you want to allow more complex expressions, you may want to directly evaluate the string as a Groovy expression. Inside the GroovyConsole or a Groovy script, you can directly call evaluate, which will evaluate an expression in the context of that script:
def numNames = 'Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine'.split()
// Add each numer name as a property to the script.
numNames.eachWithIndex { name, i ->
this[name] = i
}
println evaluate('(Two + Six) / Four') // -> 2
If you are not in one of those script-friendly worlds, you can use the GroovyShell class:
def numNames = 'Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine'.split()
def langMap = [:]
numNames.eachWithIndex { name, i -> langMap[name] = i }
def shell = new GroovyShell(langMap as Binding)
println shell.evaluate('(Two + Six) / Four') // -> 2
But, be aware that using eval is very risky. If the input string is user-generated, i would not recommend you going this way; the user could input something like "rm -rf /".execute(), and, depending on the privileges of the script, erase everything from wherever that script is executed. You may first validate that the input string is "safe" (maybe checking it only contains known operators, whitespaces, parentheses and number names) but i don't know if that's safe enough.
Another alternative is defining your own mini-language for those expressions and then parsing them using something like ANTLR. But, again, this really depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Related
I'm trying to generate HashMap object that will have properties and values set from parsed text input. Working fine with simple assigned, but wanted to make it more clever and use inject.
def result = new HashMap();
def buildLog = """
BuildDir:
MSBuildProjectFile:test.csproj
TargetName: test
Compile:
Reference:
""".trim().readLines()*.trim()
buildLog.each {
def (k,v) = it.tokenize(':')
result."${k.trim()}"=v?.trim()
}
println "\nResult:\n${result.collect { k,v -> "\t$k='$v'\n" }.join()}"
generates expected output:
Result:
Reference='null'
MSBuildProjectFile='test.csproj'
BuildDir='null'
TargetName='test'
Compile='null'
after replacing the insides of .each { } closure with injection:
it.tokenize(':').inject({ key, value -> result."${key}" = value?.trim()})
the results generated are missing unset values
Result:
MSBuildProjectFile='test.csproj'
TargetName='test'
Am I doing something wrong, tried with inject ("", {...}) but it seems to push may keys into values.
inject is basically a reduce. The reducing function takes two arguments, the result of the previous iteration or the initial value (e.g. the accumulator) and the next value from the sequence. So it could be made to work, but since you only expect one sequence value, it just convolutes the code.
I do see a great use for collectEntries here, as it allows you to create a Map using either small key/values map, or lists of two elements. And the latter you have:
result = buildLog.collectEntries {
it.split(":",2)*.trim()
}
should work for your code instead of buildLog.each
I'm currently building a small DSL, which needs to specify a set of properties in key=value pairs, however the keys may contain dashes '-' or periods '.' and I can't seem to get it to work.
Boiled down I essentially try passing a Map as a delegate to a closure, but the syntax keeps alluring me.
As an example, consider this:
def map = [:]
map.with {
example1 = 123
//exam-ple2 = 123
//'exam-ple3' = 123
//(exam-ple4) = 123
exam.ple5 = 123
//'exam.ple6' = 123
}
Example 1 is fine, key equals value and easy readable. Examples 2 and 4 are according to the compiler a binary expression and won't compile. Examples 3 and 6 are constant expressions and won't compile. Example 5 will compile, but generate a NPE at runtime.
I can use workarounds like passing the Map as an argument to the closure, which gives me example 3 and 6, but the verbosity of it annoys me.
Does anybody have any ideas how to neatly DSL a property map?
BTW: I call the DSL from java not groovy, so tricks on the parsing side has to be java :)
UPDATE 1 : After the inital comments and answers..
So the script is evaluated by a GroovyShell as a DelegatingScript, where the delegate is a Java object. The closure contains properties from .properties files, that needs to be defined in different context, e.g.
env {
server-name=someHost1
database.name=someHost2
clientName=someHost3
}
The delegating (Java) object would read this block as
public void env(Closure closure) {
Map map = new HashMap();
closure.setDelegate(map);
closure.setResolveStrategy(Closure.DELEGATE_ONLY);
closure.call();
... do something with map...
}
Now the user (i.e. not me) will probably copy from the original property files into the script and change the names, hence I would rather they could do it without having to edit too much as it is bound to cause typos..
As I stated I has also example 3 and 6 covered as well, but yes, Tim, I forgot the implicit it :)
For now I have changed the format to a string, so the DSL writes something like
env '''
server-name=someHost1
database.name=someHost2
clientName=someHost3
'''
That is, using a multi-line string instead of a closure, and then read the string and using a standard java.util.Properties:
public void env(String envString) {
Properties properties = new Properties;
properties.load(new StringReader(envString))
....etc
}
And although this works, the mix of having closures and multi-line string is the only downside for now.
In a map declaration, Groovy parses identifiers such as example1 and example2 as string keys to a map:
[ example1: 1, example2: 2 ]
In the .with{} context, it probably uses a setProperty(property, value) mechanism.
But your case features expressions exam.ple and exam-ple. Those expressions have precedence, thus, Groovy will try to resolve them first (with probably something like exam.getProperty('ple') and exam.minus(ple), respectively).
You have some syntactic alternatives, but you will have to make it clear to Groovy what are supposed to be string keys and what are other expressions:
def map = [
'exam.ple4' : 4, // direct map declaration
example5 : 5 // unambiguous key declaration: no quotes needed
]
map.with {
example1 = 1
put 'exam.ple2', 2 // ambiguous, needs quotes
it.'exam-ple3' = 3 // as per #TimYates suggestion
}
assert map['exam-ple3'] == 3
assert map.'exam.ple2' == 2
assert map['exam.ple4'] == 4
assert map.example5 == 5 // again, no quotes needed for key
I am new to Groovy so I am a bit confused by the run time binding, typed and not typed attributes of the language. Personally I prefer types to be declared.
However, I have a question.
I have a small method that takes some variable from maps, input, whatever, that I know are numbers. Let's say that I don't know what the initial type was (it's somewhere deep in the code or comes from an external source), other that it was a number. Now I have a method that takes two of these arguments and I have to do a modulo operation on them. Because they might be decimal or not, I wrote a small method using the remainder of BigDecimal so to enforce the type I used the type BigDecimal on the method signature.
def callerMethod(Map map) {
...
map.each{
calledMethod(it.val1, it.val2)
...
}
...
}
def calledMethod(BigDecimal val1, BigDecimal val2) {
...
vl1.remainder(val2)
...
}
Is this correct? If the incoming argument is Integer (most of the time the primitives are boxed if I understand it correctly), will it be implicitly cast or turned into a BigDecimal?
How does this work in Groovy.
I still think that since I have the option to use types, I want to use them rather than declaring everything def. It also makes it easier to read code or see what something is if you reading already existing code
The problem in this methods are not the type of variables, is the each of your map
In a groovy Map, the each have two signatures.
One receive a Map.Entry of parameter and other receive key and value
Ex.:
Map map = [key1:'value1',key2:'value2']
map.each{ Map.Entry entryMap ->
println "The value of key: ${entryMap.key} is ${entryMap.value}"
}
The result of this each will be:
The value of key: key1 is value1
The value of key: key2 is value2
Or could be like this
Map map = [key1:'value1',key2:'value2']
map.each{ def key, def value ->
println "The value of key: ${key} is ${value}"
}
And the result of this second will be the same of the first.
If you want to pass two specific arguments to you calledMethod, pass both outside of the each like this:
def callerMethod(Map map) {
calledMethod(map.val1, map.val2)
}
I don't understand perfectly what you want.. I hope that's help you to do you code.
I'm having trouble checking whether two strings are equal when one of them was passed through a splat argument. Because coffeescript uses strict comparisons, and because it makes a copy of the arguments when they go through a splat, I can't get the strings to compare properly without resorting to backticks. Is there a better way? Here's a minimal piece of code that demonstrates the problem:
check=(arg) ->
if arg == 'foo' then "'#{arg}'=='foo'" else "'#{arg}'!='foo'"
emit=(args...) ->
check(args)
console.log(emit('foo'))
console.log(check('foo'))
The output from this will be as follows:
> coffee mincase.coffee
'foo'!='foo'
'foo'=='foo'
EDIT:
mu is too short gave me the key, so the revised working code looks like this (everything is the same except emit)
emit=(args...)->
check.apply(null,args)
When you use a splat, the splat puts the splatted arguments into an array. For example:
f = (x...) -> console.log(x instanceof Array)
f(6)
will give you a true in the console. The fine manual isn't so fine in this case, it doesn't exactly spell it out, it assumes that you understand how JavaScript's arguments object works and leaves out the explicit splat puts your arguments into an array part.
So you end up passing an array to check and an array compared with a string using CoffeeScript's == (or JavaScript's ===) will never be true.
If you want emit to check the first argument, then you need to say so:
emit = (args...) -> check(args[0])
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/TBndM/
In the following piece of code (taken from the Groovy Semantics Manual page), why prefix the assignment with the keyword def?
def x = 0
def y = 5
while ( y-- > 0 ) {
println "" + x + " " + y
x++
}
assert x == 5
The def keyword can be removed, and this snippet would produce the same results. So what's the effect of the keyword def ?
It's syntactic sugar for basic scripts. Omitting the "def" keyword puts the variable in the bindings for the current script and groovy treats it (mostly) like a globally scoped variable:
x = 1
assert x == 1
assert this.binding.getVariable("x") == 1
Using the def keyword instead does not put the variable in the scripts bindings:
def y = 2
assert y == 2
try {
this.binding.getVariable("y")
} catch (groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException e) {
println "error caught"
}
Prints: "error caught"
Using the def keyword in larger programs is important as it helps define the scope in which the variable can be found and can help preserve encapsulation.
If you define a method in your script, it won't have access to the variables that are created with "def" in the body of the main script as they aren't in scope:
x = 1
def y = 2
public bar() {
assert x == 1
try {
assert y == 2
} catch (groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException e) {
println "error caught"
}
}
bar()
prints "error caught"
The "y" variable isn't in scope inside the function. "x" is in scope as groovy will check the bindings of the current script for the variable. As I said earlier, this is simply syntactic sugar to make quick and dirty scripts quicker to type out (often one liners).
Good practice in larger scripts is to always use the "def" keyword so you don't run into strange scoping issues or interfere with variables you don't intend to.
Ted's answer is excellent for scripts; Ben's answer is standard for classes.
As Ben says, think of it as "Object" -- but it is much cooler in that it does not constrain you to the Object methods. This has neat implications with respect to imports.
e.g. In this snippet I have to import FileChannel
// Groovy imports java.io.* and java.util.* automatically
// but not java.nio.*
import java.nio.channels.*
class Foo {
public void bar() {
FileChannel channel = new FileInputStream('Test.groovy').getChannel()
println channel.toString()
}
}
new Foo().bar()
e.g. But here I can just 'wing it' as long as everything is on the classpath
// Groovy imports java.io.* and java.util.* automatically
// but not java.nio.*
class Foo {
public void bar() {
def channel = new FileInputStream('Test.groovy').getChannel()
println channel.toString()
}
}
new Foo().bar()
According to this page, def is a replacement for a type name and can simply be thought of as an alias for Object (i.e. signifying that you don't care about the type).
As far as this single script is concerned there is no practical difference.
However, variables defined using the keyword "def" are treated as local variables, that is, local to this one script. Variables without the "def" in front of them are stored in a so called binding upon first use. You can think of the binding as a general storage area for variables and closures that need to be available "between" scripts.
So, if you have two scripts and execute them with the same GroovyShell, the second script will be able to get all variables that were set in the first script without a "def".
The reason for "def" is to tell groovy that you intend to create a variable here. It's important because you don't ever want to create a variable by accident.
It's somewhat acceptable in scripts (Groovy scripts and groovysh allow you to do so), but in production code it's one of the biggest evils you can come across which is why you must define a variable with def in all actual groovy code (anything inside a class).
Here's an example of why it's bad. This will run (Without failing the assert) if you copy the following code and paste it into groovysh:
bill = 7
bi1l = bill + 3
assert bill == 7
This kind of problem can take a lot of time to find and fix--Even if it only bit you once in your life it would still cost more time than explicitly declaring the variables thousands of times throughout your career. It also becomes clear to the eye just where it's being declared, you don't have to guess.
In unimportant scripts/console input (like the groovy console) it's somewhat acceptable because the script's scope is limited. I think the only reason groovy allows you to do this in scripts is to support DSLs the way Ruby does (A bad trade-off if you ask me, but some people love the DSLs)
Actually, I don't think it would behave the same...
variables in Groovy still require declaration, just not TYPED declaration, as the right-hand side generally contains enough information for Groovy to type the variable.
When I try to use a variable that I haven't declared with def or a type, I get an error "No such property", since it assumes that I'm using a member of the class containing the code.