I am trying to migrate a GWT-2.0.2 project to the net.ltgt.gwt.maven:gwt-maven-plugin, but it seems to be calling the GWT-compiler with parameters that weren't recognized back in times of GWT 2.0.2, like -deploy, -sourceLevel etc.
I know it is possible to add extra parameters, but is it possible to exclude some?
Not possible: https://github.com/tbroyer/gwt-maven-plugin/blob/main/src/main/java/net/ltgt/gwt/maven/GwtOptions.java
class CommandlineBuilder {
public static List<String> buildArgs(Log log, GwtOptions options) {
List<String> args = new ArrayList<>();
if (options.getLogLevel() != null) {
args.add("-logLevel");
args.add(options.getLogLevel());
}
args.add("-war");
args.add(options.getWarDir().getAbsolutePath());
args.add("-workDir");
args.add(options.getWorkDir().getAbsolutePath());
args.add("-deploy");
args.add(options.getDeployDir().getAbsolutePath());```
Related
As per the sonar logs, I see that sonar first runs the sensors, then the decorators and then stores the analysis results to the database. Is is possible to access analysis results in a sonar plugin?
Thanks
The Sonar web application is available at localhost:9000 (or wherever it's installed).
There is also a plugin for Eclipse to view issues:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/SonarQube+in+Eclipse
I finally found a solution to my problem here.
http://sonarqube.15.x6.nabble.com/sonar-dev-Where-can-I-find-new-issue-information-on-sonar-db-td5021022.html
// this annotation is important to be sure that relevant data on issues are up-to-date.
#DependsUpon(DecoratorBarriers.ISSUES_TRACKED)
public final class MyDecorator implements Decorator {
private final ResourcePerspectives perspectives;
public TechnicalDebtDecorator(ResourcePerspectives perspectives) {
this.perspectives = perspectives;
}
public void decorate(Resource resource, DecoratorContext context) {
Issuable issuable = perspectives.as(Issuable.class, resource);
if (issuable != null) {
List<Issue> issues = issuable.issues();
// Issue has method isNew()
}
}
}
Friends,
Now we are developing a eclipse plugin, it contains a action to generated a service interface and it's impl stub.
Now the interface is generated, I want to use eclipse JDT to create a java class which implements sepecified interface, but don't know how.
The info we have:
the interface name, the impl class name, the packagename, the java project contains them.
Thanks in advance for your kindly help.
A quick scan of how the new class wizard does it, it seems that there is no public easy to use API for this. You can have a look at org.eclipse.jdt.ui.wizards.NewTypeWizardPage.createType(IProgressMonitor) method to see how JDT itself creates new classes.
It should be possible to extend the org.eclipse.jdt.ui.wizards.NewTypeWizardPage, so you can leverage the createType() method.
Probably the minimal steps you would have to do is simply generate source content into the correctly placed IFile. ex:
public Object execute(ExecutionEvent event) throws ExecutionException {
final String PACKAGE_PATH = "z.ex/src/z/ex/go";
final String CONTENT = "package z.ex.go;\n"
+ "public class RunAway {\npublic static void main(String[] args) {\n"
+ "System.out.println(\"Run Away\");\n}\n}\n";
final IWorkspaceRoot root = ResourcesPlugin.getWorkspace().getRoot();
final IResource packageResource = root.findMember(PACKAGE_PATH);
if (packageResource instanceof IFolder) {
IFolder packageFolder = (IFolder) packageResource;
final IFile file = packageFolder.getFile("RunAway.java");
try {
if (!file.exists()) {
file.create(new ByteArrayInputStream(CONTENT.getBytes()),
true, new NullProgressMonitor());
} else {
file.setContents(
new ByteArrayInputStream(CONTENT.getBytes()),
IFile.FORCE | IFile.KEEP_HISTORY,
new NullProgressMonitor());
}
} catch (CoreException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return null;
}
See AbstractNewClassWizard for a smaller example that is similar to NewTypeWizardPage and uses some of the JDT APIs.
You can use the new class wizard to create classes.
This will prompt the user for the class name, et cetera. You can initialize the values of the wizard page. Below I am setting the source folder only (and tell the wizard that it cannot be changed, thus the second false parameter). You might want to set the interface and possible the package as well.
OpenNewClassWizardAction wizard = new OpenNewClassWizardAction();
wizard.setOpenEditorOnFinish(false);
NewClassWizardPage page = new NewClassWizardPage();
page.setPackageFragmentRoot(sourceFolder, false);
wizard.setConfiguredWizardPage(page);
wizard.run();
return (IType) wizard.getCreatedElement();
Hope that helps!
Create the entire java file using the JDT - AST. First create the AST and then write it to a java file. It might look as hefty work, but its the best one. You will have complete control.
I would like to be able to run tests on my fake repository (that uses a list)
and my real repository (that uses a database) to make sure that both my mocked up version works as expected and my actual production repository works as expected. I thought the easiest way would be to use TestCase
private readonly StandardKernel _kernel = new StandardKernel();
private readonly IPersonRepository fakePersonRepository;
private readonly IPersonRepository realPersonRepository;
[Inject]
public PersonRepositoryTests()
{
realPersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
_kernel = new StandardKernel(new TestModule());
fakePersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
}
[TestCase(fakePersonRepository)]
[TestCase(realPersonRepository)]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(IPersonRepository personRepository)
{
if (personRepository == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException("Person Repostory never Injected : is Null");
}
var records = personRepository.GetAllPeople();
Assert.AreEqual(0, records.Count());
}
but it asks for a constant expression.
Attributes are a compile-time decoration for an attribute, so anything that you put in a TestCase attribute has to be a constant that the compiler can resolve.
You can try something like this (untested):
[TestCase(typeof(FakePersonRespository))]
[TestCase(typeof(PersonRespository))]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(Type personRepoType)
{
// do some reflection based Activator.CreateInstance() stuff here
// to instantiate the incoming type
}
However, this gets a bit ugly because I imagine that your two different implementation might have different constructor arguments. Plus, you really don't want all that dynamic type instantiation code cluttering the test.
A possible solution might be something like this:
[TestCase("FakePersonRepository")]
[TestCase("TestPersonRepository")]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(string repoType)
{
// Write a helper class that accepts a string and returns a properly
// instantiated repo instance.
var repo = PersonRepoTestFactory.Create(repoType);
// your test here
}
Bottom line is, the test case attribute has to take a constant expression. But you can achieve the desired result by shoving the instantiation code into a factory.
You might look at the TestCaseSource attribute, though that may fail with the same error. Otherwise, you may have to settle for two separate tests, which both call a third method to handle all of the common test logic.
I have a code template with a variable and I would like to capitalize(just the first letter) the value of this variable only in some occurrences. Is there a way to do this?
The template code is as follows - I would like to capitalize Property Name in my function names...
private $$${PropertyName};
${cursor}
public function get${PropertyName}()
{
return $$this->${PropertyName};
}
public function set${PropertyName}($$value)
{
$$this->${PropertyName} = $$value;
}
Please Note: This is a template for use with code templates in the IDE (not in PHP). For details see: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/tutorials/os-eclipse-code-templates/index.html
I also want this and tried to build a custom TemplateVariableResolver to do it. (I already have one custom resolver in place that generates new UUIDs a la http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/jdtui/2007/12/04/text-templates-2/.)
I made a custom resolver bound to capitalize:
public class CapitalizingVariableResolver extends TemplateVariableResolver {
#Override
public void resolve(TemplateVariable variable, TemplateContext context) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
final List<String> params = variable.getVariableType().getParams();
if (params.isEmpty())
return;
final String currentValue = context.getVariable(params.get(0));
if (currentValue == null || currentValue.length() == 0)
return;
variable.setValue(currentValue.substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + currentValue.substring(1));
}
}
(plugin.xml:)
<extension point="org.eclipse.ui.editors.templates">
<resolver
class="com.foo.CapitalizingVariableResolver"
contextTypeId="java"
description="Resolves to the value of the variable named by the first argument, but with its first letter capitalized."
name="capitalized"
type="capitalize">
</resolver>
</extension>
that I would use like this: (I am working in Java; I see that you do not appear to be)
public PropertyAccessor<${propertyType}> ${property:field}() {
return ${property};
}
public ${propertyType} get${capitalizedProperty:capitalize(property)}() {
return ${property}.get();
}
public void set${capitalizedProperty}(${propertyType} ${property}) {
this.${property}.set(${property});
}
As of Eclipse 3.5, the problem I am having is that my custom resolver does not get a chance to re-resolve once I've specified a value for the property variable. It appears that the Java Development Tools (Eclipse JDT) do this dependent template variable re-resolution via a mechanism called MultiVariableGuess within the JavaContext (see addDependency()). Unfortunately for us, that mechanism does not seem to be exposed, so I/we can't use it to do the same (without lots of copy-and-paste or other redundant work).
At this point, I am giving up again for a while and will keep typing the leading-lowercase and leading-uppercase names separately into two independent template variables.
I'm using the NUnit 2.5.3 TestCaseSource attribute and creating a factory to generate my tests. Something like this:
[Test, TestCaseSource(typeof(TestCaseFactories), "VariableString")]
public void Does_Pass_Standard_Description_Tests(string text)
{
Item obj = new Item();
obj.Description = text;
}
My source is this:
public static IEnumerable<TestCaseData> VariableString
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(string.Empty).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Empty_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(null).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Null_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(" ").Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Whitespace_Text");
}
}
What I need to be able to do is to add a maximum length check to the Variable String, but this maximum length is defined in the contracts in the class under test. In our case its a simple public struct:
public struct ItemLengths
{
public const int Description = 255;
}
I can't find any way of passing a value to the test case generator. I've tried static shared values and these are not picked up. I don't want to save stuff to a file, as then I'd need to regenerate this file every time the code changed.
I want to add the following line to my testcase:
yield return new TestCaseData(new string('A', MAX_LENGTH_HERE + 1))
.Throws(typeof(PreconditionException));
Something fairly simple in concept, but something I'm finding impossible to do. Any suggestions?
Change the parameter of your test as class instead of a string. Like so:
public class StringTest {
public string testString;
public int maxLength;
}
Then construct this class to pass as an argument to TestCaseData constructor. That way you can pass the string and any other arguments you like.
Another option is to make the test have 2 arguments of string and int.
Then for the TestCaseData( "mystring", 255). Did you realize they can have multiple arguments?
Wayne
I faced a similar problem like yours and ended up writing a small NUnit addin and a custom attribute that extends the NUnit TestCaseSourceAttribute. In my particular case I wasn't interested in passing parameters to the factory method but you could easily use the same technique to achieve what you want.
It wasn't all that hard and only required me to write something like three small classes. You can read more about my solution at: blackbox testing with nunit using a custom testcasesource.
PS. In order to use this technique you have to use NUnit 2.5 (at least) Good luck.