This is what I am trying to do:
public void method(int myVal, string myOtherVal)
{
// doing something
}
dynamic myVar = new SomeDynamicObjectImplementer();
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
Note that my properties are also DynamicObjects. My problem is that the TryConvert method is never called and that I get a runtime error saying the method signature is invalid.
The following is working great:
string strVar = myVar.StringProperty;
int intVar = myVar.IntProperty;
And I would like to avoid
method((int)myVar.IntProperty, (string)myVar.StringProperty);
Is it possible to override something in DynamicObject to allow this? (or something else)
Thank you
The problem is your assumption that it will try a dynamic implicit convert on arguments of an dynamic invocation to make a method call work, this is not true.
When your arguments aren't statically typed, it will use the runtime type to find the best matching method (if the runtime type matches the static rules for implicit conversion to the argument type this will work too), since your your IntProperty,StringProperty seem to be returning a DynamicObject rather than an Int and a String or something that could statically be converter implicitly, this lookup will fail.
If SomeDynamicObjectImplementer could actually return an Int for IntProperty and a String for StringProperty your method call for without casting would actually work. It's also probably a better dynamic typing practice if you data type is based on the actually type of data rather than usage using try convert. You could add actually implicit convert methods for every possible type that you could return to that returned DynamicObject type, but that could cause strange resolution issues to depending on how much you are overloading.
However, another option to keep your dynamic implementation the same is to mix a little controlled static typing in, you can use ImpromputInterface (in nuget) to put an interface on top of a dynamic object, if you do that then the TryConvert method would be called on your returned DynamicObjects.
public interface ISomeStaticInterface{
int IntProperty {get;}
string StringProperty {get;}
}
...
var myVar = new SomeDynamicObjectImplementer().ActLike<ISomeStaticInterface>();
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
Instead of using myVar.IntProperty can't you just put them in variables first, like you already did, and then use then for your method?
so method(intVar , strVar); seems fine. At least more elegant than casting.
Of course, if you're already certain your object will have IntProperty and StringProperty, why not just make an actual object with those properties instead?
Why are you doing the cast?
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
should compile.
If the two properties must be the types suggested by the names then they shouldn't be dynamic.
Related
I am aware that a variable can be dynamically typed with the def keyword in Groovy. But I have also noticed that in some circumstances it can be left out, such as when defining method parameters, eg func(p1, p2) instead of func(def p1, def p2). The latter form is discouraged.
I have noticed that this is extendable to all code - anytime you want to define a variable and set its value, eg var = 2 the def keyword can be safely left out. It only appears to be required if not instantiating the variable on creation, ie. def var1 so that it can be instantiated as a NullObject.
Is this the only time def is useful? Can it be safely left out in all other declarations, for example, of classes and methods?
Short answer: you can't. There are some use cases where skipping the type declaration (or def keyword) works, but it is not a general rule. For instance, Groovy scripts allow you to use variables without specific type declaration, e.g.
x = 10
However, it works because groovy.lang.Script class implements getProperty and setProperty methods that get triggered when you access a missing property. In this case, such a variable is promoted to be a global binding, not a local variable. If you try to do the same on any other class that does not implement those methods, you will end up getting groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException.
Skipping types in a method declaration is supported, both in dynamically compiled and statically compiled Groovy. But is it useful? It depends. In most cases, it's much better to declare the type for a better readability and documentation purpose. I would not recommend doing it in the public API - the user of your API will see Object type, while you may expect some specific type. It shows that this may work if your intention is to receive any object, no matter what is its specific type. (E.g. a method like dump(obj) could work like that.)
And last but not least, there is a way to skip type declaration in any context. You can use a final keyword for that.
class Foo {
final id = 1
void bar(final name) {
final greet = "Hello, "
println greet + name + "!"
}
}
This way you can get a code that compiles with dynamic compilation, as well as with static compilation enabled. Of course, using final keyword prevents you from re-assigning the variable, but for the compiler, this is enough information to infer the proper type.
For more information, you can check a similar question that was asked on SO some time ago: Groovy: "def" keyword vs concrete type
in Groovy it plays an important role in Global and Local variable
if the variable name is same with and without def
def is considered local and without def its global
I have explained here in detail https://stackoverflow.com/a/45994227/2986279
So if someone use with and without it will make a difference and can change things.
To illustrate the following example I created a litte spock test (but it's about groovy itself, not spock):
void "some spock test"() {
given: String value = null
expect: someMethod(value) == 3
}
int someMethod(String s) {
return 3
}
int someMethod(Map s) {
return 5
}
There are two methods who's signatures only differ by the type of the given parameter. I thought that when I give it a null value that is explicitly typed as a string, the string-method will be called.
But that doesn't happen; the test fails, because the map-method is called! Why?
I guess groovy ignores the type and treats all nulls the same. There seems to be some kind of priority of types: When I use Object instead of Map as the parameter type of the wrong-method, its all the same, but when I for instance use Integer, the test succeeds.
But than again: If groovy really ignores the type of nulls, why can the following fix the original test:
expect: someMethod((String) value) == 3
If you read my answer to the question Tim already mentioned you will see that I talk there about runtime types. The static type plays normally no role in this. I also described there how the distance calculation is used and that for null the distance to Object is used to determine the best fitting method. What I did not mention is that you can force method selection by using a cast. Internally Groovy will use a wrapper for the object, that also transports the type. Then the transported type is used instead. But you surely understand, that this means a one additional object creation per method class, which is very inefficient. Thus it is not the standard. In the future Groovy maybe change to include that static type information, but this requires a change to the MOP as well. And that is difficult
I would like to be able to use plain java-style implicit/explicit casting instead of asType overrides so that sources written in Java work properly. I've overridden asType on String similarly to the approach suggested in How to overload some Groovy Type conversion for avoiding try/catch of NumberFormatException? like:
oldAsType = String.metaClass.getMetaMethod("asType", [Class] as Class[])
String.metaClass.asType = {Class typ ->
if (Foo.class.isAssignableFrom(typ)) {
Foo.myCast(delegate)
} else {
oldAsType.invoke(delegate,typ)
}
}
I'd like all of these options to work:
// groovy
String barString
Foo foo = barString asType(Foo.class) // asType works but
Foo foo = barString // implicit cast fails
Foo foo = (Foo) barString // explicit cast fails
The latter two fail because groovy is using DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType, which doesn't attempt to invoke new Foo() unless the object to be cast is either one of a slew of special cases or is some sort of Collection type.
Note that the solution Can I override cast operator in Groovy? doesn't solve the issue because the code that is doing the casting is regular Java code that I cannot alter, at least not at the source code level. I'm hoping that there is either a secret hook into casting or a way to override the static castToType method (in a Java class, called by another Java class - which Can you use Groovy meta programming to override a private method on a Java class says is unsupported)... or some other clever approach I haven't thought of.
Edit: The question is about using Java-style casting syntax, essentially to use groovy facilities to add an autoboxing method. Groovy calls this mechanism "casting," for better or worse (see DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType as referenced above). In particular, I have replaced an enum with a resourced class and want to retain JSON serialization. Groovy's JSON package automatically un/marshals enum values of instance members to strings and I'm trying to make the replacement class serialize compatibly with a minimal changes to the source code.
Part of the problem here is you are confusing conversion with casting. Using the "as" operator is not the same thing as imposing a cast. They seem similar, but they serve separate purposes.
Foo foo = (Foo) barString
That doesn't say something like "create a Foo out of barString". That says "Declare a reference named foo, associate the static type Foo with that reference and then point that reference at the object on the heap that the reference barString currently points to.". Unlike languages like C++, Groovy and Java do not allow you to ever get in a situation where a reference points at an object that is of a type that is incompatible with the reference's type. If you ever got into a situation where a Foo reference was pointing to a String on the heap, that would represent a bug in the JVM. It cannot be done. You can come up with ways to create Foo objects out of String objects, but that isn't what the code above is about.
The answer appears to be "no". Absent a rewrite of the DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType to allow for this sort of metaprogramming, the implication is to use another implementation strategy or use a different language.
I am using the following method to convert string type to a generic type
public static T Parse<T>(string value)
{
// or ConvertFromInvariantString if you are doing serialization
return (T)TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(typeof(T)).ConvertFromString(value);
}
I have to call it like this
Parse<Int32>(Some string value);
Parse<DateTime>(Some string value);
I am trying that instead of giving the result type explicitly, i can give it like
Parse<Type.GetType("Int32")>(Some string value);
Generics are off the table here. Primary issue is that you are trying to take a shortcut around type identity. The name of a type is not just the type name that you use in a program. It also includes the namespace it is declared in, the display name of the assembly in which it is stored, the version number of the assembly and the public key token for the assembly's strong name. In other words, the Type.AssemblyQualifiedName.
Which requires you to write your code similar to this:
Parse(Type.GetType("System.Int32, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089""), SomeStringValue);
That will work just fine. But I'd guess that you are not going to enjoy writing that. Otherwise gives you insight in what a compiler does when it reads "Int32" in your program. It will look in its symbol table that was primed with the reference assemblies you added and notes what possible matches there may be in that table, considering what using directives are in effect.
You'd have to implement something similar in your program. The equivalent of the compiler's symbol table is a Dictionary<string, Type>. You can prime it by populating it with the kind of types that you prefer to use with a short string name. Like
LookupTable.Add("Int32", typeof(int));
LookupTable.Add("String", typeof(string));
// etc...
Now you can write:
Parse(LookupTable["Int32"], SomeStringValue);
That will work just fine. But I'd guess that you are not going to enjoy writing that. Pretty hard to beat the compiler.
I think that if you need to specify the type at runtime instead of compile time (as in your example where you have specified "Int32" as a string) then first you need to rewrite your code with something like:
public static object Parse(Type destinationType, string value)
{
return TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(destinationType).ConvertFromString(value);
}
Now you can call this new method writing:
var myValue = Parse(Type.GetType("System.Int32"), "33243");
Type.GetType requires you to specify the full namespace and the assembly name (Assembly qualified name), but for mscorlib types (like all primitive types) or for the currently executing assembly types you only need to specify the full namespace, like System.Int32 or System.DateTime. See MSDN.
Consider also that there are other option to convert primitive types to and from string. I suggest you to use Convert.ChangeType. This method basically check if the specified type support the IConvertible interface. Basically you can write just:
var myValue = Convert.ChangeType("23423", typeof(Int32));
or
var myValue = Convert.ChangeType("23423", Type.GetType("System.Int32"));
It also support InvariantCulture:
var myValue = Convert.ChangeType("23423", typeof(Int32), CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
There is also a good library that combine IConvertible feature and TypeConverter, see Code Project: Universal Type Converter. This library as many useful features and it is free, also available on nuget.
I am trying to save an Object which implements an Interface say IInterface.
private PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface> Object = new PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface>(Environment.CurrentDirectory + #"\Object");
Since many classes implement the same interface(all of which need to cached), for a generic approach I want to store an Object of type IInterface in the dictionary.
So that anywhere I can pull out that object type cast it as IInterface and use that object's internal implementation of methods etc..
But, as soon as the Esent cache is initialized it throws this error:
Not supported for SetColumn
Parameter name: TColumn
Actual value was IInterface.
I have tried to not use XmlSerializer to do the same but is unable to deserialize an Interface type.Also, [Serializable] attribute cannot be used on top of a Interface, so I am stuck.
I have also tried to make all the implementations(classes) of the Interface as [Serializable] as a dying attempt but to no use.
Does any one know a way out ? Thanks in advance !!!
The only reason that only structs are supported (as well as some basic immutable classes such as string) is that the PersistentDictionary is meant to be a drop-in replacement for Dictionary, SortedDictionary and other similar classes.
Suppose I have the following code:
class MyClass
{
int val;
}
.
.
.
var dict = new Dictionary<int,MyClass>();
var x = new MyClass();
x.val = 1;
dict.Add(0,x);
x.val = 2;
var y = dict[0];
Console.WriteLine(y.val);
The output in this case would be 2. But if I'd used the PersistentDictionary instead of the regular one, the output would be 1. The class was created with value 1, and then changed after it was added to the dictionary. Since a class is a reference type, when we retrieve the item from the dictionary, we will also have the changed data.
Since the PersistentDictionary writes the data to disk, it cannot really handle reference types this way. Serializing it, and writing it to disk is essentially the same as treating the object as a value type (an entire copy is made).
Because it's intended to be used instead of the standard dictionaries, and the fact that it cannot handle reference types with complete transparency, the developers instead opted to support only structs, because structs are value types already.
However, if you're aware of this limitation and promise to be careful not to fall into this trap, you can allow it to serialize classes quite easily. Just download the source code and compile your own version of the EsentCollections library. The only change you need to make to it is to change this line:
if (!(type.IsValueType && type.IsSerializable))
to this:
if (!type.IsSerializable)
This will allow classes to be written to the PersistentDictionary as well, provided that it's Serializable, and its members are Serializable as well. A huge benefit is that it will also allow you to store arrays in there this way. All you have to keep in mind is that it's not a real dictionary, therefore when you write an object to it, it will store a copy of the object. Therefore, updating any of your object's members after adding them to the PersistentDictionary will not update the copy in the dictionary automatically as well, you'd need to remember to update it manually.
PersistentDictionary can only store value-structs and a very limited subset of classes (string, Uri, IPAddress). Take a look at ColumnConverter.cs, at private static bool IsSerializable(Type type) for the full restrictions. You'd be hitting the typeinfo.IsValueType() restriction.
By the way, you can also try posting questions about PersistentDictionary at http://managedesent.codeplex.com/discussions .
-martin