Can you advice me how to get Navigator.oscpu using Scala-js? Mapping to native Navigator does not seems to have the oscpu.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/oscpu
This appears to be a Firefox-only feature (based on a quick look around), so it's not supported by Scala.js out of the box. You'll need to add it yourself, by adding a side-facade to Navigator. This isn't terribly hard -- see the definition of BeaconNavigator for an example of how to do this.
So you would need something like (untested):
#js.native
trait OSCPUNavigator extends js.Object {
def oscpu: String = js.native
}
implicit def toOSCPUNavigator(n: Navigator): OSCPUNavigator =
n.asInstanceOf[OSCPUNavigator]
Basically, you define a trait with oscpu on it, and you tell Scala.js how to see a Navigator as that trait.
Mind, though, it'll still only work on Firefox. I suspect it'll throw errors on other browsers...
Related
In particular situations, you need to have some utility methods that are required across different classes. To solve this situation, you create an Util object wherein you place all these methods
object AggregatorUtil {
def aggregateValues(list : List[BigDecimal]) = //some logic...
}
// Import everything in the Utilities object
import AggregatorUtil._
and then import whichever members of util are required in your class. However, the downside to this is that, as all your methods are inside the singleton object and it becomes tricky to mock the object and unit test methods of the class that use utility methods.
To solve this problem again, the only solution that came to mind was Extracting the functionality out to a trait and then mocking the trait.
Please let me know if there is any other approach for handling and testing of util methods and which one is a rather cleaner approach.
Thanks in advance !!!
Note: -I am using scalatest and mockito in my project.
If you need to mock, putting this all in a mocked-out trait is the way forward. If mocking is unnecessary though, avoid it. Mocking unnecessarily is... unnecessary. You'll just be wasting time and effort for something which provides no additional value.
Mocking is best used when you have complex functionality or functionality in other files which you want to treat as a black box and just assume it works as expected (you'd then typically unit test this stuff separately). If you can avoid it and use the functions' actual functionality though, you'll get a much more realistic view of what your application does and will spot new bugs/breaking changes quicker (if you have mocked out functionality and forget to update your mocks, you might not any spot new bugs you introduce).
A good example of when mocking is necessary is when you're mocking calls to a database in a MVC application (e.g. a Scala Play microservice). You obviously don't want to have to run an actual database when testing your code, so you'd typically mock out your connector layer and return dummy/mocked data from your connector functions.
An example of something you wouldn't mock is something like:
trait MyTrait {
def toInt(str: String): Int
}
val mockedTrait = mock[MyTrait]
when(mockedTrait.toInt(eq("3")).thenReturn(3)
It's a bit of a silly example, but I think it explains the point clearly - doing something like this would be ridiculous. Mocking isn't always the answer.
I mostly mock with Test-Implementation which I find more readable and you don't have to learn a mocking framework.
Here an example:
The Interface:
trait DataRepo {
def persist(data: DataObject): Future[DataObject]
def idents(): Future[List[String]]
def insertData(dataCont: DataObject): Future[Int]
...
}
The Mocked Interface:
object DataRepoMock extends DataRepo {
def persist(data: DataObject): Future[DataObject] = ??? // only implement when needed
def idents(): Future[List[String]] = Future.successful((0 to 10).map(_=>Random.nextInt(100)))
def insertData(dataCont: DataObject): Future[Int] = Future.successful(Random.nextInt(100))
...
}
You can also use all the Scala goodies, like Pattern Matching, to make your Mock react differently to input.
Here is an example that this is not just used by myself;):
EPFLx: scala-reactiveX see Lecture 2.5 Testing Actor Systems:
def fakeGetter(url:String, depth: Int):Props =
Props(new Getter(url, depth){
override def webClient: WebClient = FakeWebClient
})
I was searching a way of doing dependency injection in Scala kind of like Spring or Unity in C# and I found nothing really interesting.
MacWire: I don't understand the benefit as we have to give the class in wire[CASS]. So what's the point if you give the implementation when you call wire? I can do new CASS it will be the same.
Cake pattern with self type: Seems to not answer what I'm searching for.
So I decided to make my implementation and ask you what do you think because it's surprising me that nothing like this has been done before. Maybe my implementation have lot's of issues in real life also.
So here is an example:
trait Messenger {
def send
}
class SkypeMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Skype")
}
class ViberMessenger extends Messenger {
def send = println("Viber")
}
I want here to inject everywhere in my app the implementation configured in only one place:
object App {
val messenger = Inject[Messenger]
def main(args: Array[String]) {
messenger.send
}
}
Note the Inject[Messenger] that I define like below with the config I want (prod or dev):
object Inject extends Injector with DevConfig
trait ProdConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new SkypeMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
trait DevConfig {
this: Injector =>
register[Messager](new ViberMessager)
register[Messager](new ViberMessager, "viber")
}
And finally here is the Injector which contains all methods apply and register:
class Injector {
var map = Map[String, Any]()
def apply[T: ClassTag] =
map(classTag[T].toString).asInstanceOf[T]
def apply[T: ClassTag](id: String) =
map(classTag[T].toString + id).asInstanceOf[T]
def register[T: ClassTag](instance: T, id: String = "") = {
map += (classTag[T].toString + id -> instance)
instance
}
}
To summaries:
I have a class Injector which is a Map between interfaces/traits (eventually also an id) and an instance of the implementation.
We define a trait for each config (dev, prod...) which contains the registers. It also have a self reference to Injector.
And we create an instance of the Injector with the Config we want
The usage is to call the apply method giving the Interface type (eventually also an id) and it will return the implementation's instance.
What do you think?
You code looks a lot like dependency injection in Lift web framework. You can consult Lift source code to see how it's implemented or just use the framework. You don't have to run a Lift app to use its libraries. Here is a small intro doc. Basically you should be looking at this code in Lift:
package net.liftweb.http
/**
* A base trait for a Factory. A Factory is both an Injector and
* a collection of FactorMaker instances. The FactoryMaker instances auto-register
* with the Injector. This provides both concrete Maker/Vender functionality as
* well as Injector functionality.
*/
trait Factory extends SimpleInjector
You can also check this related question: Scala - write unit tests for objects/singletons that extends a trait/class with DB connection where I show how Lift injector is used.
Thanks guys,
So I make my answer but the one from Aleksey was very good.
I understand better the Cake Pattern with this sample:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/play-slick-cake-sample
Take a look also to the other implementations without DI and compare:
https://github.com/freekh/play-slick/tree/master/samples/
And so the cake pattern doesn't have a centralized config like we can have with my shown lift style DI. I will anyway use the Cake pattern as it fits well with Slick.
What I didn't like with Subcut is the implicits everywhere. I know there is a way to avoid them but it looks like a fix to me.
Thanks
To comment on MacWire, you are right that you could just use new - and that's the whole point :). MacWire is there only to let you remove some boilerplate from your code, by not having to enumerate all the dependencies again (which is already done in the constructor).
The main idea is that you do the wiring at "the end of the world", where you assemble your application (or you could divide that into trait-modules, but that's optional). Otherwise you just use constructors to express dependencies. No magic, no frameworks.
I have a companion object with a private method, like so:
package com.example.people
class Person(val age: Int)
object Person {
private def transform(p: Person): Person = new Person(p.age + 1)
}
I would like to test this method, with something like:
class PersonSpec extends FlatSpec {
"A Person" should "transform correctly" in {
val p1 = new Person(1)
val p2 = Person.transform(p1) // doesn't compile, because transform is private!
assert( p2 === new Person(2) )
}
}
Any help on having test code access private methods?
Actually, as it is written, I might be able to create a subclass of Person, but what if Person is declared as final or sealed?
Thanks!
I am in the middle when it comes to testing everything. I don't usually test everything, but sometimes it's really useful to be able to unit test a private function without having to mangle my code to make it possible. If you're using ScalaTest, you can use the PrivateMethodTester to do it.
import org.scalatest.{ FlatSpec, PrivateMethodTester }
class PersonSpec extends FlatSpec with PrivateMethodTester {
"A Person" should "transform correctly" in {
val p1 = new Person(1)
val transform = PrivateMethod[Person]('transform)
// We need to prepend the object before invokePrivate to ensure
// the compiler can find the method with reflection
assert(p2 === p1 invokePrivate transform(p1))
}
}
That may not be exactly what you want to do, but you get the idea.
You could declare your method to be package private:
private[people] def transform(p: Person): Person = new Person(p.age + 1)
If you put PersonSpec in the same package it will be able to access it.
I leave it to you to decide if it's really wise to unit test a private method :)
The need to unit-test private methods is a design smell.
Either you test them through your public API which is ok if they are small and just helper methods - or, which is more likely, it contains different logic/responsibility and should be moved to another class that is used by delegation in the Person. Then you would test the public API of that class first.
See a related answer for more details.
Likely you can access it using Java/Scala reflection, but it is just a workaround for the design problem. Still, if you need to, see a related Java answer how to do that.
#jlegler's answer here helped me, but I still had some debugging to do before things worked, so I thought I'd write exactly what's needed for this here.
to test:
class A
object A {
private def foo(c: C): B = {...}
}
use:
val theFuncion = PrivateMethod[B]('foo)
val result = A invokePrivate theFunction(c)
Note the locations of A, B
Personally, I say make everything public and just prepend with _ or __ to indicate that other devs shouldn't use it.
I realize this is Scala and not Python, but regardless, "We're all consenting adults here."
"Private" methods aren't actually private (for example) and certainly aren't secure, so why make life harder for what is essentially a social contract? Prepend and be done -- if another dev wants to go poking around in dark places, they either have a good reason or deserve what they get.
Generally speaking: if you want to effectively test your code, you first have to write it testable.
Scala implements the functional paradigm and extensively uses immutable objects by design, "case classes" are examples (my opinion: the Person class should be a case class).
Implementing the private methods make sense if objects has mutable state, in this case you might want to protect the state of the objects. But if objects are immutable, why implement methods as private? In your example, the method produces a copy of Person, for what reason do you want to make it private? I do not see any reason.
I suggest you think about this. Again, if you want to effectively test your code you have to write it testable.
a possible work around would be testing private method indirectly: testing a public method which calls the private method
I don't think that unit testing is about testing contract of the class - it is about testing simple functionality(unit).
Also I don't think that it is a good idea to make some methods public only to make them easily testable. I believe that keeping API as narrow as possible is a good way to help other developers to use your code(IDE will not suggest private methods) and understand contract.
Also we should not put everything in a single method. So sometimes we can put some logic into a private method.... and of course we want to test it as well. Testing it through the public API will increase complexity of you test.(other option is to move logic of the private method to another helper class and test it there..this class will not be used directly by developers and will not clutter up api)
Guys from scalatest ,I think, added PrivateMethodTester for a purpose.
I've been trying to write a Scala (2.10.0) compiler plugin that analyzes some parts of a traversed code.
This is what I originally had:
class MyPlugin (val global: Global) extends Plugin {
import global._
val name = "myPlugin"
val components = List[PluginComponent](MyComponent)
private object MyComponent extends PluginComponent {
val global: MyPlugin.this.global.type = MyPlugin.this.global
val runsAfter = List ("refchecks")
val phaseName = "codeAnalysis"
def newPhase (_prev: Phase) = new AnalysisPhase (_prev)
class AnalysisPhase (prev: Phase) extends StdPhase (prev) {
override def name = phaseName
def apply (unit: CompilationUnit) {
codeTraverser traverse unit.body
printLinesToFile(counters.map{case (k,v) => k + "\t" + v},out)
}
def codeTraverser = new ForeachTreeTraverser (tree => /* Analyze tree */)
}
}
}
This code works as expected, however I don't like it because I cannot decouple the code traverser method from this object. I would like to write a separate CodeTraverser class that will perform the analysis on a given Tree. This, among other things may help me test this code better.
The main problem is that unit.body is of an internal Tree type inside scala.reflect.internal.Trees. If I could work with scala.reflect.api.Trees#Tree instead of the internal version I could decouple the traverser functionality and even test it quite easily.
I've tried to find a way to convert between the two, but to no avail. Is it even possible? From looking at their source code, many things looks too similar for this to be impossible.
You're probably struggling with the cake pattern that the compiler is implemented with and a lot of path-dependency that comes with it. I've gone through this some time ago when I was writing some really beefy macro and wanted to refactor a bunch of functions out of macro implementation into separate utility class. I found this to be quite an annoying issue.
Here's how I would implement your Traverser in a separate class:
class MyPluginUtils[G <: Global with Singleton](global: G) {
import global._
class AnalyzingTraverser extends ForeachTreeTraverser(tree => /* analyze */)
}
Now, inside your plugin you have to use it like this:
val utils = new MyPluginUtils[global.type](global)
import utils.{global => _, _}
val traverser = new AnalyzingTraverser
As you can see, it's not the most intuitive thing in the world (i.e. this is confusing as hell), but this is the best that I could come up with that actually worked, and I tried a lot of things before finally settling on this one. I would be really happy to see some nicer way to do this.
AFAIK, such extensibility is one of the general problems with the cake pattern (as used in scalac implementation). I've seen other people also complain about this.
The component (the SubComponent or PluginComponent) must be created with the global member initialized early (that is, as an early definition).
Don't forget to review the one-question faq. I may go set google calendar to remind me to do that every Monday morning.
For an example, see the continuations plugin.
The component is defined with a utility class mixed in.
The utility class follows the usual cake recipe. (Leave it as an abstract dependency and let the compiler ensure that everything was mixed correctly.)
Here is a recent edit showing more early definitions, as a demonstration that this usage is not anomalous.
val anfPhase = new {
val global = SelectiveCPSPlugin.this.global
val cpsEnabled = pluginEnabled
override val enabled = cpsEnabled
} with SelectiveANFTransform {
val runsAfter = List("pickler")
}
(In future, they plan to deprecate early definitions in favor of parameterized traits when they are available in the language.)
More generally, global, i.e., "the compiler", is routinely instantiated for testing the compiler itself. I haven't seen it mocked, but computeInternalPhases is the template method for picking what phases are assembled modulo plugins.
There is a current effort to reduce internal dependencies, for the purpose of testing, as a window onto the difficulties involved.
I am using ScalaMock and Mockito
I have this simple code
class MyLibrary {
def doFoo(id: Long, request: Request) = {
println("came inside real implementation")
Response(id, request.name)
}
}
case class Request(name: String)
case class Response(id: Long, name: String)
I can easily mock it using this code
val lib = new MyLibrary()
val mock = spy(lib)
when(mock.doFoo(1, Request("bar"))).thenReturn(Response(10, "mock"))
val response = mock.doFoo(1, Request("bar"))
response.name should equal("mock")
But If I change my code to
val lib = new MyLibrary()
val mock = spy(lib)
when(mock.doFoo(anyLong(), any[Request])).thenReturn(Response(10, "mock"))
val response = mock.doFoo(1, Request("bar"))
response.name should equal("mock")
I see that it goes inside the real implementation and gets a null pointer exception.
I am pretty sure it goes inside the real implementation without matchers too, the difference is that it just doesn't crash in that case (any ends up passing null into the call).
When you write when(mock.doFoo(...)), the compiler has to call mock.doFoo to compute the parameter that is passed to when.
Doing this with mock works, because all implementations are stubbed out, but spy wraps around the actual object, so, the implementations are all real too.
Spies are frowned upon in mockito world, and are considered code smell.
If you find yourself having to mock out some functionality of your class while keeping the rest of it, it is almost surely the case when you should just split it into two separate classes. Then you'd be able to just mock the whole "underlying" object entirely, and have no need to spy on things.
If you are still set on using spies for some reason, doReturn would be the workaround, as the other answer suggests. You should not pass null as the vararg parameter though, it changes the semantics of the call. Something like this should work:
doReturn(Response(10, "mock"), Array.empty:_*).when(mock).doFoo(any(), any())
But, I'll stress it once again: this is just a work around. The correct solution is to use mock instead of spy to begin with.
Try this
doReturn(Response(10, "mock"), null.asInstanceOf[Array[Object]]: _*).when(mock.doFoo(anyLong(), any[Request]))