I'm refactoring a Cake build script, and decided to introduce a class to hold some build settings that get passed around a lot and/or that exist in the global scope.
Some of the settings come from arguments, and are set using the Argument<T>(string name, string defaultValue) syntax.
I'd like to create something like this:
var context = BuildContext.FromArguments();
For that I need acquire an instance of the current ICakeContext. The reason for that I believe is that all methods defined in cake scripts become methods of a custom-built ICakeContext that probably inherits from CakeContext and thus can call all of its (extension) methods, but once you define a class, it becomes a nested class that no longer has access to nice helpers like Argument<T>(name, defaultValue).
I was hoping I could either do ICakeContext.Current or simply pass this as in BuildContext.FromArguments(this) or something similar.
But the keyword this is not allowed at that level of a Cake script (not sure why, is the top level a static method?
So, the question is: how do I get a reference to the current ICakeContext?
The reason that this does not work, is because of the way Roslyn implements scripting, and there is no concept of this in the script's outer scope.
You can access the context in a couple of different ways.
From a Task:
Task("MyTask")
.Does(ctx =>
{
BuildContext.FromArguments(ctx);
});
From Setup/Teardown:
Setup(ctx =>
{
BuildContext.FromArguments(ctx);
});
Teardown(ctx =>
{
BuildContext.FromArguments(ctx);
});
From TaskSetup/TaskTeardown:
TaskSetup(ctx =>
{
BuildContext.FromArguments(ctx);
});
TaskTeardown(ctx =>
{
BuildContext.FromArguments(ctx);
});
From the outer script scope:
#load "somefile.csx"
BuildContext.FromArguments(Context);
Related
Edit: So far it looks like the answer to my question is, "You can't do that in Swift." I currently have a solution whereby the subclass names are listed in an array and I loop around and instantiate them to trigger the process I'm describing below. If this is the best that can be done, I'll switch it to a plist so that least it's externally defined. Another option would be to scan a directory and load all files found, then I would just need to make sure the compiler output for certain classes is put into that directory...
I'm looking for a way to do something that I've done in C++ a few times. Essentially, I want to build a series of concrete classes that implement a particular protocol, and I want to those classes to automatically register themselves such that I can obtain a list of all such classes. It's a classic Prototype pattern (see GoF book) with a twist.
Here's my approach in C++; perhaps you can give me some ideas for how to do this in Swift 4? (This code is grossly simplified, but it should demonstrate the technique.)
class Base {
private:
static set<Base*> allClasses;
Base(Base &); // never defined
protected:
Base() {
allClasses.put(this);
}
public:
static set<Base*> getAllClasses();
virtual Base* clone() = 0;
};
As you can see, every time a subclass is instantiated, a pointer to the object will be added to the static Base::allClasses by the base class constructor.
This means every class inherited from Base can follow a simple pattern and it will be registered in Base::allClasses. My application can then retrieve the list of registered objects and manipulate them as required (clone new ones, call getter/setter methods, etc).
class Derived: public Base {
private:
static Derived global; // force default constructor call
Derived() {
// initialize the properties...
}
Derived(Derived &d) {
// whatever is needed for cloning...
}
public:
virtual Derived* clone() {
return new Derived(this);
}
};
My main application can retrieve the list of objects and use it to create new objects of classes that it knows nothing about. The base class could have a getName() method that the application uses to populate a menu; now the menu automatically updates when new subclasses are created with no code changes anywhere else in the application. This is a very powerful pattern in terms of producing extensible, loosely coupled code...
I want to do something similar in Swift. However, it looks like Swift is similar to Java, in that it has some kind of runtime loader and the subclasses in this scheme (such as Derived) are not loaded because they're never referenced. And if they're not loaded, then the global variable never triggers the constructor call and the object isn't registered with the base class. Breakpoints in the subclass constructor shows that it's not being invoked.
Is there a way to do the above? My goal is to be able to add a new subclass and have the application automatically pick up the fact that the class exists without me having to edit a plist file or doing anything other than writing the code and building the app.
Thanks for reading this far — I'm sure this is a bit of a tricky question to comprehend (I've had difficulty in the past explaining it!).
I'm answering my own question; maybe it'll help someone else.
My goal is to auto initialize subclasses such that they can register with a central authority and allow the application to retrieve a list of all such classes. As I put in my edited question, above, there doesn't appear to be a way to do this in Swift. I have confirmed this now.
I've tried a bunch of different techniques and nothing seems to work. My goal was to be able to add a .swift file with a class in it and rebuild, and have everything automagically know about the new class. I will be doing this a little differently, though.
I now plan to put all subclasses that need to be initialized this way into a particular directory in my application bundle, then my AppDelegate (or similar class) will be responsible for invoking a method that scans the directory using the filenames as the class names, and instantiating each one, thus building the list of "registered" subclasses.
When I have this working, I'll come back and post the code here (or in a GitHub project and link to it).
Same boat. So far the solution I've found is to list classes manually, but not as an array of strings (which is error-prone). An a array of classes such as this does the job:
class AClass {
class var subclasses: [AClass.Type] {
return [BClass.self, CClass.self, DClass.self]
}
}
As a bonus, this approach allows me to handle trees of classes, simply by overriding subclasses in each subclass.
I'm looking for a way of condensing some of my AS3 code to avoid almost duplicate commands.
The issue is that I have multiple variables with almost the same name e.g. frenchLanguage, englishLanguage, germanLanguage, spanishLanguage
My Controller class contains public static variables (these are accessed across multiple classes) and I need a way to be able to call a few of these variables dynamically. If the variables are in the class you are calling them from you can do this to access them dynamically:
this["spanish"+"Language"]
In AS3 it's not possible to write something like:
Controller.this["spanish"+"Language"]
Is there any way to achieve this? Although everything is working I want to be able to keep my code as minimal as possible.
It is possible to access public static properties of a class this way (assuming the class name is Controller as in your example:
Controller['propertyName']
I'm not sure how this helps to have "minimal code", but this would be a different topic/question, which might need some more details on what you want to achive.
Having said that, I like the approach DodgerThud suggests in the comments of grouping similar values in a (dynamic) Object or Dictonary and give it a proper name.
Keep in mind, that if the string you pass in as the key to the class or dynamic object is created from (textual) user input you should have some checks for the validity of that data, otherwise your programm might crash or expose other fields to the user.
It would make sense to utilize a Dictionary object for a set of variables inherited: it provides a solid logic and it happens to work...
I do not think this is what you are trying to accomplish. I may be wrong.
Classes in AS3 are always wrapped within a package - this is true whether you have compiled from Flash, Flex, Air, or any other...
Don't let Adobe confuse you. This was only done in AS3 to use Java-Based conventions. Regardless, a loosely typed language is often misunderstood, unfortunately. So:
this["SuperObject"]["SubObject"]["ObjectsMethod"][ObjectsMethodsVariable"](args..);
... is technically reliable because the compiler avoids dot notation but at runtime it will collect a lot of unnecessary data to maintain those types of calls.
If efficiency becomes an issue..
Use:
package packages {
import flash.*.*:
class This implements ISpecialInterface {
// Data Objects and Function Model
// for This Class
}
package packages {
import...
class ISpecialInterface extends IEventDispatcher
Am having a little trouble understanding what and what cannot be done using FakeItEasy. Suppose I have a class
public class ToBeTested{
public bool MethodToBeTested(){
SomeDependentClass dependentClass = new SomeDependentClass();
var result = dependentClass.DoSomething();
if(result) return "Something was true";
return "Something was false";
}
}
And I do something like below to fake the dependent class
var fakedDepClass = A.Fake<DependentClass>();
A.CallTo(fakedDepClass).WithReturnType<bool>().Returns(true);
How can i use this fakedDepClass when am testing MethodToBeTested. If DependentClass was passed as argument, then I can pass my fakedDepClass, but in my case it is not (also this is legacy code that I dont control).
Any ideas?
Thanks
K
Calling new SomeDependentClass() inside MethodToBeTested means that you get a concrete actual SomeDependentClass instance. It's not a fake, and cannot be a FakeItEasy fake.
You have to be able to inject the fake class into the code to be tested, either (as you say) via an argument to MethodToBeTested or perhaps through one of ToBeTested's constructors or properties.
If you can't do that, FakeItEasy will not be able to help you.
If you do not have the ability to change ToBeTested (and I'd ask why you're writing tests for it, but that's an aside), you may need to go with another isolation framework. I have used TypeMock Isolator for just the sort of situation you describe, and it did a good job.
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.
This is pretty basic, but sort of a generic issue so I want to hear what people's thoughts are. I have a situation where I need to take an existing MSI file and update it with a few standard modifications and spit out a new MSI file (duplication of old file with changes).
I started writing this with a few public methods and a basic input path for the original MSI. The thing is, for this to work properly, a strict path of calls has to be followed from the caller:
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath);
custom.Duplicate(targetmsipath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath);
Would it be better to put all the conversion logic as part of the constructor instead of making them available as public methods? (in order to avoid having the caller have to know what the "proper order" is):
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath, targetmsipath); // saves converted msi
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath); // saves optional xml for sms
The constructor would then directly duplicate the MSI file, upgrade it and save it to the target location. The "WriteSmsXmlFile is still a public method since it is not always required.
Personally I don't like to have the constructor actually "do stuff" - I prefer to be able to call public methods, but it seems wrong to assume that the caller should know the proper order of calls?
An alternative would be to duplicate the file first, and then pass the duplicated file to the constructor - but it seems better to have the class do this on its own.
Maybe I got it all backwards and need two classes instead: SourcePackage, TargetPackage and pass the SourcePackage into the constructor of the TargetPackage?
I'd go with your first thought: put all of the conversion logic into one place. No reason to expose that sequence to users.
Incidentally, I agree with you about not putting actions into a constructor. I'd probably not do this in the constructor, and instead do it in a separate converter method, but that's personal taste.
It may be just me, but the thought of a constructor doing all these things makes me shiver. But why not provide a static method, which does all this:
public class CustomPackage
{
private CustomPackage(String sourcePath)
{
...
}
public static CustomPackage Create(String sourcePath, String targetPath)
{
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcePath);
custom.Duplicate(targetPath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
return custom;
}
}
The actual advantage of this method is, that you won't have to give out an instance of CustomPackage unless the conversion process actually succeeded (safe of the optional parts).
Edit In C#, this factory method can even be used (by using delegates) as a "true" factory according to the Factory Pattern:
public interface ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class CustomPackage: ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class Consumer
{
public delegate ICustomizedPackage Factory(String,String);
private Factory factory;
public Consumer(Factory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
private ICustomizedPackage CreatePackage()
{
return factory.Invoke(..., ...);
}
...
}
and later:
new Consumer(CustomPackage.Create);
You're right to think that the constructor shouldn't do any more work than to simply initialize the object.
Sounds to me like what you need is a Convert(targetmsipath) function that wraps the calls to Duplicate, Upgrade and Save, thereby removing the need for the caller to know the correct order of operations, while at the same time keeping the logic out of the constructor.
You can also overload it to include a targetxmlpath parameter that, when supplied, also calls the WriteSmsXmlFile function. That way all the related operations are called from the same function on the caller's side and the order of operations is always correct.
In such situations I typicaly use the following design:
var task = new Task(src, dst); // required params goes to constructor
task.Progress = ProgressHandler; // optional params setup
task.Run();
I think there are service-oriented ways and object-oritented ways.
The service-oriented way would be to create series of filters that passes along an immutable data transfer object (entity).
var service1 = new Msi1Service();
var msi1 = service1.ReadFromFile(sourceMsiPath);
var service2 = new MsiCustomService();
var msi2 = service2.Convert(msi1);
service2.WriteToFile(msi2, targetMsiPath);
service2.WriteSmsXmlFile(msi2, targetXmlPath);
The object-oriented ways can use decorator pattern.
var decoratedMsi = new CustomMsiDecorator(new MsiFile(sourceMsiPath));
decoratedMsi.WriteToFile(targetMsiPath);
decoratedMsi.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetXmlPath);