I just started to use DBx::Class and begun slightly to understand, but it's complex.
I want to call "recursive_update" but I was not able to manage how I can use it.
If I understand the documentation right, I have to include it in the .../My/Schema.pm which was create by DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader?
__PACKAGE__->load_namespaces(default_resultset_class => '+DBIx::Class::ResultSet::RecursiveUpdate');
When I want to update the data I use the ResultSet with the relationships.
my $result = $schema->resultset('Table')->find($id});
$result->recursive_update({
'rel_table' => [....),
});
unfortunately I got an error:
Can't locate object method "recursive_update" via package My::Schema::Result::Table"
Where is my fault?
recursive_update has to be called on a ResultSet object, not a Result object.
You might want to add a helper method to your Result base class (if you already have one else create it, as it makes sense for many things) which gets a ResultSet restricted to the Result object it is called on and calls recursive_update on it.
Related
Getting wired issue like main array has been changed if changed value of another array. I think issue is about copying same address, not sure but just thinking of it. I have tried from last 3 hours but unable to get rid from it.
Look at below illustration to get better idea.
List<page> _pageList;
List<page> _orderList = [];
_pageList = _apiResponse.result as List<page>;
_orderList.add(_pageList[0].element);
_orderList[0].title = "XYZ"
//--> Here if I change the `_orderList[0].title` then it also change the `title` inside "_pageList"
How can we prevent the changes in main array?
I got same issue in my one of the project. What I have done is, use json to encode and decode object that help you to make copy of the object so that will not be affected to the main List.
After 3rd line of your code, make changes like below
Elements copyObject = Elements.fromJson(_pageList[0].element.toJson());
// First of all you have to convert your object to the Map and and map to original object like above
_orderList.add(copyObject);
Hope that will help you.
You can use a getter function to create a copy of your list and use that instead of
altering your actual list.
example:
List<Page> get orderList{
return [..._orderList];
}
Lists in Dart store references for complex types, so this is intended behaviour.
From your code:
_orderList.add(_pageList[0].element);
_orderList[0] and _pageList[0].element point to the same reference (if they are non-primitive).
There is no general copy() or clone() method in dart, as far as i know. So you need to copy the object yourself, if you want a separate instance. (see this question)
We have following code structure in our code
namedParamJdbcTemplate.query(buildMyQuery(request),new MapSqlParameterSource(),myresultSetExtractor);
and
namedParamJdbcTemplate.query(buildMyQuery(request),new BeanPropertySqlParameterSource(mybean),myresultSetExtractor);
How can I expect these method calls without using isA matcher?
Assume that I am passing mybean and myresultSetExtractor in request for the methods in which above code lies.
you can do it this way
Easymock.expect(namedParamJdbcTemplateMock.query(EasyMock.anyObject(String.class),EasyMock.anyObject(Map.class),EasyMock.anyObject(ResultSetExtractor.class))).andReturn(...);
likewise you can do mocking for other Methods as well.
hope this helps!
good luck!
If you can't use PowerMock to tell the constructors to return mock instances, then you'll have to use some form of Matcher.
isA is a good one.
As is anyObject which is suggested in another answer.
If I were you though, I'd be using Captures. A capture is an object that holds the value you provided to a method so that you can later perform assertions on the captured values and check they have the state you wanted. So you could write something like this:
Capture<MapSqlParameterSource> captureMyInput = new Capture<MapSqlParameterSource>();
//I'm not entirely sure of the types you're using, but the important one is the capture method
Easymock.expect(namedParamJdbcTemplateMock.query(
EasyMock.anyObject(Query.class), EasyMock.capture(captureMyInput), EasyMock.eq(myresultSetExtractor.class))).andReturn(...);
MapSqlParameterSource caughtValue = captureMyInput.getValue();
//Then perform your assertions on the state of your caught value.
There are lots of examples floating around for how captures work, but this blog post is a decent example.
Hi I have a situation where I need to look up the number of recently viewed products on catalog/product/view.phtml. In the recently viewed 'product_viewed.phtml' file it calls
$_products = $this->getRecentlyViewedProducts()
to get the recently viewed. How would I access this method from within the catalog/product/view.phtml file?
I don't know where this method is. I've tried searching for it but it doesn't seem to exist. When I write click it in Netbeans and click go to declaration it takes me to
class Mage_Reports_Block_Product_Viewed extends Mage_Reports_Block_Product_Abstract
Actually on the class itself. This class only has _toHtml(), getCount(), and getPageSize() methods.
I just need to know whether there are any recently viewed products.
Any help most appreciated!
Billy
If you look into 'Mage_Reports_Block_Product_Viewed', you will notice:
$this->setRecentlyViewedProducts($this->getItemsCollection());
That 'getItemsCollection' method is defined in the abstract class... And you will notice this abstract class will create a model based on $_indexName defined in the (subclassed) block.
If you just want the collection, you can probably get away with:
$_products = Mage::getModel('reports/product_index_viewed')->getCollection();
And then adding whatever you want to the collection:
$_products
->addAttributeToSelect('*')
->setAddedAtOrder();
// optionally add other methods similar to Mage_Reports_Block_Product_Abstract::getItemsCollection
Another approach that might be more suited would be to create the original block:
$productViewedBlock = $this->getLayout()->createBlock('reports/product_viewed');
On which you can simply call whatever you want:
$_collection = $productViewedBlock->getItemsCollection();
$_count = $productViewedBlock->getCount();
The getRecentlyViewedProducts function is a magical getter that gets the data that was set with setRecentlyViewedProducts in app/code/core/Mage/Reports/Block/Product/Viewed.php (which builds it using app/code/core/Mage/Reports/Block/Product/Abstract.php's function _getRecentProductsCollection).
This is complicated stuff that you don't want to reproduce; its better, IMO to make your own Block that extends Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_Abstract that will give you access to the same functionality, and drop your new block into the page you're working on.
I am testing a parser I have written in Scala using ScalaTest. The parser handles one file at a time and it has a singleton object like following:
class Parser{...}
object Resolver {...}
The test case I have written is somewhat like this
describe("Syntax:") {
val dir = new File("tests\\syntax");
val files = dir.listFiles.filter(
f => """.*\.chalice$""".r.findFirstIn(f.getName).isDefined);
for(inputFile <- files) {
val parser = new Parser();
val c = Resolver.getClass.getConstructor();
c.setAccessible(true);
c.newInstance();
val iserror = errortest(inputFile)
val result = invokeparser(parser,inputFile.getAbsolutePath) //local method
it(inputFile.getName + (if (iserror)" ERR" else " NOERR") ){
if (!iserror) result should be (ResolverSuccess())
else if(result.isInstanceOf[ResolverError]) assert(true)
}
}
}
Now at each iteration the side effects of previous iterations inside the singleton object Resolver are not cleaned up.
Is there any way to specify to scalatest module to re-initialize the singleton objects?
Update: Using Daniel's suggestion, I have updated the code, also added more details.
Update: Apparently it is the Parser which is doing something fishy. At subsequent calls it doesn't discard the previous AST. strange. since this is off topic, I would dig more and probably use a separate thread for the discussion, thanks all for answering
Final Update: The issue was with a singleton object other than Resolver, it was in some other file so I had somehow missed it. I was able to solve this using Daniel Spiewak's reply. It is dirty way to do things but its also the only thing, given my circumstances and also given the fact I am writing a test code, which is not going into production use.
According to the language spec, no, there is no way to recreate singleton objects. However, it is possible to reflectively invoke the constructor of a singleton, which overwrites the internal MODULE$ field which contains the actual singleton value:
object Test
Test.hashCode // => e.g. 779942019
val c = Test.getClass.getConstructor()
c.setAccessible(true)
c.newInstance()
Test.hashCode // => e.g. 1806030550
Now that I've shared the evil secret with you, let me caution you never, ever to do this. I would try very very hard to adjust the code, rather than playing sneaky tricks like this one. However, if things are as you say, and you really do have no other option, this is at least something.
ScalaTest has several ways to let you reinitialize things between tests. However, this particular question is tough to answer without knowing more. The main question would be, what does it take to reinitialize the singleton object? If the singleton object can't be reinitialized without instantiating a new singleton object, then you'd need to make sure each test loaded the singleton object anew, which would require using custom class loaders. I find it hard to believe someone would design something that way, though. Can you update your question with more details like that? I'll take a look again later and see if the extra details makes the answer more obvious.
ScalaTest has a runpath that loads classes anew for each run, but not a testpath. So you'll have to roll your own. The real problem here is that someone has designed this in a way that it is not easily tested. I would look at loading Resolver and Parser with a URLClassLoader inside each test. That way you'd get a new Resolver each test.
You'll need to take Parser & Resolver off of the classpath and off of the runpath. Put them into a directory of their own. Then create a URLClassLoader for each test that points to that directory. Then call findClass("Parser") on that class loader to get it. I'm assuming Parser refers to Resolver, and in that case the JVM will go back to the class loader that loaded Parser to get Resolver, which is your URLClassLoader. Do a newInstance on the Parser to get the instance. That should solve your problem, because you'll get a new Resolver singleton object for each test.
No answer, but I do have a simple example of where you might want to reset the singleton object in order to test the singleton construction in multiple, potential situations. Consider something stupid like the following code. You may want to write tests that validates that an exception is thrown when the environment isn't setup correctly and also write a test validates that an exception does not occur when the environment is not setup correctly. I know, I know everyone says, "Provide a default when the environment isn't setup correctly." but I DO NOT want to do this; it would cause issues because there would be no notification that you're using the wrong system.
object RequiredProperties extends Enumeration {
type RequiredProperties = String
private def getRequiredEnvProp(propName: String) = {
sys.env.get(propName) match {
case None => throw new RuntimeException(s"$propName is required but not found in the environment.")
case Some(x) => x
}
}
val ENVIRONMENT: String = getRequiredEnvProp("ENVIRONMENT")
}
Usage:
Init(RequiredProperties.ENVIRONMENT)
If I provided a default then the user would never know that it wasn't set and defaulted to the dev environment. Or something along these lines.
What is the best way of adding a new object in the entity framework. The designer adds all these create methods, but to me it makes more sense to call new on an object. The generated CreateCustomer method e.g. could be called like this:
Customer c = context.CreateCustomer(System.Guid.NewGuid(), "Name"));
context.AddToCustomer(c);
where to me it would make more sense to do:
Customer c = new Customer {
Id = System.Guid.NewGuid(),
Name = "Name"
};
context.AddToCustomer(c);
The latter is much more explicit since the properties that are being set at construction are named. I assume that the designer adds the create methods on purpose. Why should I use those?
As Andrew says (up-voted), it's quite acceptable to use regular constructors. As for why the "Create" methods exist, I believe the intention is to make explicit which properties are required. If you use such methods, you can be assured that you have not forgotten to set any property which will throw an exception when you SaveChanges. However, the code generator for the Entity Framework doesn't quite get this right; it includes server-generated auto increment properties, as well. These are technically "required", but you don't need to specify them.
You can absolutely use the second, more natural way. I'm not even sure of why the first way exists at all.
I guess it has to do with many things. It looks like factory method to me, therefore allowing one point of extension. 2ndly having all this in your constructor is not really best practice, especially when doing a lot of stuff at initialisation. Yes, your question seems reasonable, i even agree with it, however, in terms of object design, it is more practical as they did it.
Regards,
Marius C. (c_marius#msn.com)