As new to groovy...
I'm trying to replace the java idiom for event listeners, filters, etc.
My working code in groovy is the following:
def find() {
ODB odb = ODBFactory.open(files.nodupes); // data nucleus object database
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects(new QProspect());
src.each { println it };
odb.close();
}
class QProspect extends SimpleNativeQuery {
public boolean match(Prospect p) {
if (p.url) {
return p.url.endsWith(".biz");
}
return false;
}
}
Now, this is far from what I'm used to in java, where the implementation of the Query interface is done right inside the odb.getObjects() method. If I where to code "java" I'd probably do something like the following, yet it's not working:
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects( {
boolean match(p) {
if (p.url) {
return p.url.endsWith(".biz");
}
return false;
}
} as SimpleNativeQuery);
Or better, I'd like it to be like this:
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects(
{ it.url.endsWith(".biz") } as SimpleNativeQuery
);
However, what groovy does it to associate the "match" method with the outer script context and fail me.
I find groovy... groovy anyways so I'll stick to learning more about it. Thanks.
What I should've asked was how do we do the "anonymous" class in groovy. Here's the java idiom:
void defReadAFile() {
File[] files = new File(".").listFiles(new FileFilter() {
public boolean accept(File file) {
return file.getPath().endsWith(".biz");
}
});
}
Can groovy be as concise with no additional class declaration?
I think it would have helped you to get answers if you'd abstracted the problem so that it didn't rely on the Neodatis DB interface -- that threw me for a loop, as I've never used it. What I've written below about it is based on a very cursory analysis.
For that matter, I've never used Groovy either, though I like what I've seen of it. But seeing as no one else has answered yet, you're stuck with me :-)
I think the problem (or at least part of it) may be that you're expecting too much of the SimpleNativeQuery class from Neodatis. It doesn't look like it even tries to filter the objects before it adds them to the returned collection. I think instead you want to use org.neodatis.odb.impl.core.query.criteria.CriteriaQuery. (Note the "impl" in the package path. This has me a bit nervous, as I don't know for sure if this class is meant to be used by callers. But I don't see any other classes in Neodatis that allow for query criteria to be specified.)
But instead of using CriteriaQuery directly, I think you'd rather wrap it inside of a Groovy class so that you can use it with closures. So, I think a Groovy version of your code with closures might look something like this:
// Create a class that wraps CriteriaQuery and allows you
// to pass closures. This is wordy too, but at least it's
// reusable.
import org.neodatis.odb.impl.core.query.criteria;
class GroovyCriteriaQuery extends CriteriaQuery {
private final c;
QProspect(theClosure) {
// I prefer to check for null here, instead of in match()
if (theClosure == null) {
throw new InvalidArgumentException("theClosure can't be null!");
}
c = theClosure;
}
public boolean match(AbstractObjectInfo aoi){
//!! I'm assuming here that 'aoi' can be used as the actual
//!! object instance (or at least as proxy for it.)
//!! (You may have to extract the actual object from aoi before calling c.)
return c(aoi);
}
}
// Now use the query class in some random code.
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects(
new GroovyCriteriaQuery(
{ it.url.endsWith(".biz") }
)
)
I hope this helps!
I believe your real question is "Can I use closures instead of anonymous classes when calling Java APIs that do not use closures". And the answer is a definite "yes". This:
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects(
{ it.url.endsWith(".biz") } as SimpleNativeQuery
);
should work. You write "However, what groovy does it to associate the "match" method with the outer script context and fail me". How exactly does it fail? It seems to me like you're having a simple technical problem to get the solution that is both "the groovy way" and exactly what you desire to work.
Yep, thanks y'all, it works.
I also found out why SimpleNativeQuery does not work (per Dan Breslau).
I tried the following and it worked wonderfully. So the idiom does work as expected.
new File("c:\\temp").listFiles({ it.path.endsWith(".html") } as FileFilter);
This next one does not work because of the neodatis interface. The interface does not enforce a match() method! It only mentions it in the documentation yet it's not present in the class file:
public class SimpleNativeQuery extends AbstactQuery{
}
Objects<Prospect> src = odb.getObjects(
{ it.url.endsWith(".biz") } as SimpleNativeQuery
);
In the above, as the SimpleNativeQuery does not have a match() method, it makes it impossible for the groovy compiler to identify which method in the SimpleNativeQuery should the closure be attached to; it then defaults to the outer groovy script.
It's my third day with groovy and I'm loving it.
Both books are great:
- Groovy Recipes (Scott Davis)
- Programming Groovy (Venkat Subramaniam)
Related
What is the use of the static initialization block in Groovy. Why does Geb use it? If the use of it is the same as in Java, then how can you initialize non-declared fields in a situtation like this?
class ManualsMenuModule extends Module {
static content = {
toggle { $("div.menu a.manuals") }
linksContainer { $("#manuals-menu") }
links { linksContainer.find("a") }
}
void open() {
toggle.click()
waitFor { !linksContainer.hasClass("animating") }
}
}
Some answers to your questions are provided in the section about the content DSL of the Geb manual.
The DSL is implemented using Groovy's methodMissing() mechanism and modification of the delegate of the closure assigned to the static content field. If you are interested in digging deeper then you can always look at the implementation in PageContentTemplateBuilder.
I'm not expert on Geb, I can only explain the groovy meaning of the code.
1st off, it's not the static initialization block like in java. In those lines static content = {...} you are assigning to a static variable a Closure instance which is evaluated and executed LATER (hence, lazy).
The closure represents a (part of) a Geb's Groovy Builder which is called by Geb framework to register/perform some tasks.
There's no Java counterpart to achieve the same, and that's the reason why groovy-based frameworks are so nice to use for testing purposes and they follow the general rule of thumb:
test code should be more abstract then the code under test
UPDATE:
This line:
toggle { $("div.menu a.manuals") }
can be rewritten like
toggle( { $("div.menu a.manuals") } )
or
def a = { $("div.menu a.manuals") }
toggle a
so it's a method invocation and not an assignment. In groovy you can omit the brackets in some cases.
I have a scripting system where depending on where the script is executed you have access to different variables. I also want to have inferred types for a type of Auto-Completion for the script editor.
But when the types are inferred during the compile phase, I have no way of giving a Binding which explains to the compilation phase what types those dynamic variables have.
I have currently solved this by:
Not compiling the code with either #TypeChecked nor #CompileStatic but later manually running a subclassed StaticCompilationVisitor on the dynamically typed codebase and manually filling in the StaticTypesMarker.INFERRED_TYPE inside visitVariableExpression() for the dynamic variables that I know exists.
However, this seems like the wrong way to go about it, and I would actually like to work with the VariableScope instead. But it seems to be under rough lockdown inside the VariableScopeVisitor, so it's difficult to pop in a CustomVariableScope that dynamically does the lookups. I have managed to do this with reflection, replacing the VariableScopeVisitor inside CompilationUnit and currentScope and such inside VaribleScopeVisitor. It works, but I don't like working against hard-coded private field names.
This might be a long-winded way of asking: Is there an official way of handling a situation of static typing with dynamic variables? I cannot do this by setting scriptBaseClass for reasons too complex to explain here.
If the question is unclear, please tell me and I'll try to edit in better explanations.
The answer was to add a GroovyTypeCheckingExtensionSupport to a StaticTypeCheckingVisitor and then use visitClass on the first ClassNode of the CompilationUnit.
final ClassNode classNode = this.compilationUnit.getFirstClassNode();
final StaticCompilationVisitor visitor = new StaticCompilationVisitor(this.sourceUnit, classNode);
visitor.addTypeCheckingExtension(new MyGroovyTypeCheckingExtensionSupport(visitor, this.compilationUnit));
visitor.visitClass(classNode);
visitor.performSecondPass();
And create something like the class below:
private static class MyGroovyTypeCheckingExtensionSupport extends GroovyTypeCheckingExtensionSupport {
private static final ClassNode CLASSNODE_OBJECT = ClassHelper.make(Object.class);
public MyGroovyTypeCheckingExtensionSupport(StaticTypeCheckingVisitor typeCheckingVisitor, CompilationUnit compilationUnit) {
super(typeCheckingVisitor, "", compilationUnit);
}
#Override
public boolean handleUnresolvedVariableExpression(VariableExpression vexp) {
final ClassNode type = this.getType(vexp);
if (type == null || type.equals(CLASSNODE_OBJECT)) {
if (vextp.getName().equals("something")) {
this.storeType(vexp, ClassHelper.make(SomeClass.class));
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
Let's consider a simple Groovy DSL
execute {
sendNotification owner
sendNotification payee
}
The implementation of execute is
public static void execute(Closure dslCode) {
Closure clonedCode = dslCode.clone()
def dslDelegate = new MyDslDelegate(owner: 'IncCorp', payee: 'TheBoss')
clonedCode.delegate = dslDelegate
clonedCode.call()
}
and custom Delegate is
public static class MyDslDelegate {
def owner
def payee
void sendNotification(to) {
println "Notification sent to $to"
}
}
The expected result of running execute block is
Notification sent to IncCorp
Notification sent to TheBoss
the actual one is
Notification sent to class package.OwnerClassName
Notification sent to TheBoss
The problem is owner is a reserved property in the Groovy Closure itself and no resolveStrategy options help to replace owner value with custom value from delegate due to Groovy getProperty implementation for Closure
public Object getProperty(final String property) {
if ("delegate".equals(property)) {
return getDelegate();
} else if ("owner".equals(property)) {
return getOwner();
...
} else {
switch(resolveStrategy) {
case DELEGATE_FIRST:
...
}
My question is how some one can outcome this limitation and use owner property name in a custom DSL?
This is a bit of a hack, but this should get you what you want, without altering Groovy source:
public static void execute(Closure dslCode) {
Closure clonedCode = dslCode.clone()
def dslDelegate = new MyDslDelegate(owner: 'IncCorp', payee: 'TheBoss')
clonedCode.#owner = dslDelegate.owner
clonedCode.resolveStrategy = Closure.DELEGATE_ONLY
clonedCode.delegate = dslDelegate
clonedCode.call()
}
Ref: Is it possible to change the owner of a closure?
The simple answer is no, you can't. 'owner' is a reserved keyword in Groovy, and therefore by definition cannot be used as an arbitrary symbol. Even if there is a way to hack around this, you're far better off just using a name that doesn't conflict with the implementation of the language- this is especially true in Groovy, which keeps promising to redesign its MOP completely, meaning that any hack you implement may well stop working in future versions.
Perhaps the question would make more sense if you explained why you are willing to offer a bounty and search for a way of hacking around this problem, rather than just changing the name to something different and avoiding the problem entirely. Reserved symbols are a pretty fundamental limitation of a language, and ever attempting to work around them seems very unwise.
I am currently using CSS to change everything I write to upperCase when I create an entry, but that is not enough. When I save things, the text shown in the text fields is upper case, but the real value that Grails stores stays in lower case.
I am assuming I'd need to change something in the controller or anything.
Maybe transforming the $fieldValue CSS could work??
Any ideas would help!
Thnks!
You could just write setters for your domain object?
class Domain {
String aField
void setAField( String s ){
aField = s?.toUpperCase()
}
}
I think you are asking how to change values on your domain objects to uppercase. If this is not the case please clarify the question.
You have a bunch of options. I would recommend
1) In a service method, before you save, using String.toUpperCase() to modify the appropriate values on the domain object.
or
2) You can use the underlying Hibernate interceptors by defining a beforeInsert method on your domain object, and doing the toUpperCase there. (see 5.5.1 of the grails documentation)
or
3) You could do this client side. However, if it is a "business requirement" that the values are stored as upper, then I recommend doing the translation server side. It is easier to wrap tests around that code....
Using annotations is cleanest approach
import org.grails.databinding.BindingFormat
class Person {
#BindingFormat('UPPERCASE')
String someUpperCaseString
#BindingFormat('LOWERCASE')
String someLowerCaseString
}
Here is link for it: Grails doc for data binding
You can use Groovy metaprogramming to change the setter for all domain class String-typed properties without actually writing a custom setter for each property.
To do this, add something like the following to the init closure of Bootstrap.groovy
def init = { servletContext ->
for (dc in grailsApplication.domainClasses) {
dc.class.metaClass.setProperty = { String name, value ->
def metaProperty = delegate.class.metaClass.getMetaProperty(name)
if (metaProperty) {
// change the property value to uppercase if it's a String property
if (value && metaProperty.type == String) {
value = value.toUpperCase()
}
metaProperty.setProperty(delegate, value)
} else {
throw new MissingPropertyException(name, delegate.class)
}
}
}
}
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);
}
}