I am new to Drools and have to compare value of 2 objects of same class.
i.e. let's say the class is
public class Person() {
public string Name;
}
So I want to compare person1's name and person2's name and throw an exception if they are equal.
It would be great if someone can give an example of the same.
That can easily be done with a rule similar to this:
rule 'Unique Names'
when
$p1: Person()
Person(this != $p1, name == $p1.name)
then
//error
end
I would discourage you to simply throw an exception in the then part of the rule though. It is a better idea to collect your results somewhere and then validate those results outside Drools.
Related
I read many question in this forum but nothing works.
public #interface MyAnnotation {
String value() default "";
Class[] exceptionList;
}
#MyAnnotation(value="hello", exceptionList={TimeOutException.class})
public void method() {}
#Aspect
public class MyAspect {
#Around("#annotation(MyAnnotation)")
public Object handle(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint, MyAnnotation myAnnotation) {
System.out.println(myAnnotation.exceptionList); // should print out TimeOutException
}
}
How can I get the value and the exceptionList of the #MyAnnotation while executing the advice?
I'm using Spring 4.0.6, AspectJ 1.7.4
The solution for this is making sure the advice method's parameter name match the parameter name in AspectJ expression. In my case, the advice method should look like this:
#Aspect
public class MyAspect {
#Around("#annotation(myAnnotation)")
public Object handle(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint, MyAnnotation myAnnotation) {
System.out.println(myAnnotation.exceptionList); // should print out TimeOutException
}
}
You are already almost there. Probably.
You are using the correct way to retrieve the annotation, so you have the values available.
Your problem - if I interpret the very minimalistic problem description(!) you only provide via the comment in your code snippet(!) correctly - is the (wrong) assumption that sticking an array of the type Class into System.out.println() will print out the names of the Classes it contains. It does not. Instead it prints information about the reference:
[Ljava.lang.Class;#15db9742
If you want the names of the Classes, you will have to iterate over the elements of that array and use .getName(), .getSimpleName() or one of the other name providing methods of Class.
Further information on how to print elements of an array is here:
What's the simplest way to print a Java array?
Granted, this whole answer could be entirely besides the point if the problem is that you are getting null values from the annotation fields. But since you have not provided an adequate problem description ("nothing works" is not a problem description!), we can only guess at what your problem is.
Given the Play Framework 2.3 Computer Database sample application, I would like to practice adding a unique constraint on an attribute. Let's say I want the name attribute of the Computer class to be unique. I've tried to do this by adding a validate() function (and a getter) to Computer.java:
public List<ValidationError> validate() {
List<ValidationError> errors = new ArrayList<ValidationError>();
if(Computer.find.where().eq("name", getName()).findRowCount() != 0){
errors.add(new ValidationError("name", "Name must be unique. That value is already taken."));
}
return errors;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
This check works when creating new records in the database, however, this now causes a validation error when you update a Computer object but don't change the name. Is there a way to add a uniqueness constraint, similar to Rails? How can I validate uniqueness in Play?
Thanks!
UPDATE: see the answer by davide.
I ended up using the #Column(unique = true) constraint from the javax.persistence API. This doesn't generate an error in Play forms; instead, it throws a PersistenceException. Therefore I had to add change my controller to achieve the behavior I wanted. Both the create() and update() actions need a try/catch like this:
try {
computerForm.get().save();
} catch (PersistenceException pe) {
flash("error", "Please correct errors below.");
formData.reject("name", "Name conflict. Please choose a different name.");
return badRequest(createForm.render(computerForm));
}
UPDATE 2: each of the answers below is a possible solution
You need to exclude current entity from unique checking, i.e. like that:
if(Computer.find.where().eq("name", getName()).ne("id", getId()).findRowCount() != 0){
errors.add(new ValidationError("name", "Name must be unique."));
}
It will give you SQL query during update:
select count(*) from computer t0 where t0.name = 'Foo' and t0.id <> 123
And this during create:
select count(*) from computer t0 where t0.name = 'Foo' and t0.id is not null
P.S. ne() expression stands for Not Equal To and of course this approach assumes that your name field is Required
Edit: I sent you pull request with working solution, all you need is to add hidden field in your editForm like:
<input name="id" type="hidden" value='#computerForm("id").value'/>
Other thing is that you can simplify your model, i.e. don't need for getters for public fields.
I not sure if this answer your question, because I'm not familiar with Ruby syntax.
To "create a uniqueness constraint in the database" you can use the javax persistence API. Ebean will also recognize this.
To have a plain uniqueness constraint which involves a single field, you can use the #Column annotation:
#Entity
public class Computer extends Model {
...
#Column(unique = true)
public String name;
...
}
If you need some combination of fields to be unique, instead use the
#Table annotation
#Table(
uniqueConstraints=
#UniqueConstraint(columnNames={"name", "brand"})
)
#Entity
public class Computer extends Model {
...
public String name;
public String brand;
...
}
I hope it helps!
I have some puzzling issues when use Drools 5.5 final to compare String valued fields.
Essentially, I am trying to find if there are a pair of persons sharing the same name. The Person class looks like below:
public class Person {
private String name;
public String getName() { return name; }
public void setName(String n) { this.name = n; }
public Person(String name) { this.name = name;}
}
The rule that I try to trigger is :
rule "uniquePersonName"
when
$p1: Person($n1: name)
$p2: Person(this != $p1, name == $n1)
then
System.out.println("Duplicated person name found : " + $n1 + " " + $p2.getName());
end
But it never got triggered. However, if I change it to :
when
$p1: Person($n1: name)
$p2: Person(this != $p1, name != $n1)
The system works as expected, in other words, it finds all the pairs where the persons have different names.
After digging deeper, I found if I changed the name field to be of type Integer, the original rule worked fine. That made me think it was because of some bug with String comparison. So with the name field defined as the String type, I tried:
not (name == $n1)
(name == $n1)
name.toString() = $n1.toString()
name == $p1.getName()
Unfortunately, none of them worked.
Finally, the only way I could get it behave is to write the rule as:
when
$p1: Person($n1: name)
$p2: Person(name == $n1)
eval($p1!=$p2)
This made me think perhaps the problem is caused by a combination of how this works and how String comparison is done.
This is very basic feature and I would be surprised this is caused by a bug in Drools 5.5 final. But again, I could not see a way through. Can any of you help?
Thanks.
GW
It turns out this != $p1 transforms to !this.equals($p1) under the hood, and in my code I have an auto-generated equals method (code not shown in the original post), which totally change the default comparison behavior. After removing that equals method, all worked as expected.
I have a domain object which has a collection of primitive values, which represent the primary keys of another domain object ("Person").
I have a Wicket component that takes IModel<List<Person>>, and allows you to view, remove, and add Persons to the list.
I would like to write a wrapper which implements IModel<List<Person>>, but which is backed by a PropertyModel<List<Long>> from the original domain object.
View-only is easy (Scala syntax for brevity):
class PersonModel(wrappedModel: IModel[List[Long]]) extends LoadableDetachableModel[List[Person]] {
#SpringBean dao: PersonDao =_
def load: List[Person] = {
// Returns a collection of Persons for each id
wrappedModel.getObject().map { id: Long =>
dao.getPerson(id)
}
}
}
But how might I write this to allow for adding and removing from the original List of Longs?
Or is a Model not the best place to do this translation?
Thanks!
You can do something like this:
class PersonModel extends Model<List<Person>> {
private transient List<Person> cache;
private IModel<List<String>> idModel;
public PersonModel( IModel<List<String>> idModel ) {
this.idModel = idModel;
}
public List<Person> getObject() {
if ( cache == null ) {
cache = convertIdsToPersons( idModel.getObject() );
return cache;
}
public void setObject( List<Person> ob ) {
cache = null;
idModel.setObject( convertPersonsToIds( ob ) );
}
}
This isn't very good code but it shows the general idea. One thing you need to consider is how this whole thing will be serialised between requests, you might be better off extending LoadableDetachableModel instead.
Another thing is the cache: it's there to avoid having to convert the list every time getObject() is called within a request. You may or may not need it in practice (depends on a lot of factors, including the speed of the conversion), but if you use it, it means that if something else is modifying the underlying collection, the changes may not be picked up by this model.
I'm not quite sure I understand your question and I don't understand the syntax of Scala.
But, to remove an entity from a list, you can provide a link that simply removes it using your dao. You must be using a repeater to populate your Person list so each repeater entry will have its own Model which can be passed to the deletion link.
Take a look at this Wicket example that uses a link with a repeater to select a contact. You just need to adapt it to delete your Person instead of selecting it.
As for modifying the original list of Longs, you can use the ListView.removeLink() method to get a link component that removes an entry from the backing list.
i have a question.i have a method (Filter),i want to pass T dynamic.but it dosen`t accept.how can i do it?
public List<T> Filter<T>(string TypeOfCompare)
{
List<T> ReturnList2 = new List<T>();
return ReturnList2;
}
IList MakeListOfType(Type listType)
{
Type listType1 = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(listType1);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
Filter < ConstructGenericList(h) > ("s");
IList MakeListOfType(Type listType)
{
Type listType1 = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(listType1);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
It should be the other way round, you should call MakeGenericType on the generic type definition, not on the generic type argument. So the code becomes this:
IList MakeListOfType(Type elementType)
{
Type listType = typeof(List<>);
Type specificListType = listType.MakeGenericType(elementType);
return (IList)Activator.CreateInstance(specificListType);
}
(note that I changed the variables names to make the code clearer)
Generic parameters must have a type able to be determined at compile time (without resorting to something like functional type inference that some other languages have). So, you can't just stick a function between the angle brackets to get the type you want.
Edit:
Now that I know what you're trying to do, I would suggest a different approach entirely.
You mention that you are using Entity Framework, and you are trying to use one method to get a list of different types of objects. Those objects -- like Student and Teacher -- must have something in common, though, else you would not be trying to use the same method to retrieve a list of them. For example, you may just be wanting to display a name and have an ID to use as a key.
In that case, I would suggest defining an interface that has the properties common to Student, Teacher, etc. that you actually need, then returning a list of that interface type. Within the method, you would essentially be using a variant of the factory pattern.
So, you could define an interface like:
public interface INamedPerson
{
int ID { get; }
string FirstName { get; }
string LastName { get; }
}
Make your entities implement this interface. Auto-generated entities are (typically) partial classes, so in your own, new code files (not in the auto-generated code files themselves), you would do something like:
public partial class Student : INamedPerson
{
public int ID
{
get
{
return StudentId;
}
}
}
and
public partial class Teacher : INamedPerson
{
public int ID
{
get
{
return TeacherId;
}
}
}
Now, you may not even need to add the ID property if you already have it. However, if the identity property in each class is different, this adapter can be one way to implement the interface you need.
Then, for the method itself, an example would be:
public List<INamedPerson> MakeListOfType(Type type)
{
if (type == typeof(Student))
{
// Get your list of students. I'll just use a made-up
// method that returns List<Student>.
return GetStudentList().Select<Student, INamedPerson>(s => (INamedPerson)s)
.ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
if (type == typeof(Teacher))
{
return GetTeacherList().Select<Teacher, INamedPerson>(t => (INamedPerson)t)
.ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
throw new ArgumentException("Invalid type.");
}
Now, there are certainly ways to refine this pattern. If you have a lot of related classes, you may want to use some sort of dependency injection framework. Also, you may notice that there is a lot of duplication of code. You could instead pass a function (like GetStudentList or GetTeacherList) by doing something like
public List<INamedPerson> GetListFromFunction<T>(Func<IEnumerable<T>> theFunction) where T : INamedPerson
{
return theFunction().Select<T, INamedPerson>(t => (INamedPerson)t).ToList<INamedPerson>();
}
Of course, using this function requires, once again, the type passed in to be known at compile time. However, at some point, you're going to have to decide on a type, so maybe that is the appropriate time. Further, you can make your life a little simpler by leaving off the generic type at method call time; as long as you are passing in a function that takes no arguments and returns an IEnumerable of objects of the same type that implement INamedPerson, the compiler can figure out what to use for the generic type T.