When writing test code, I do a lot of this
if (!cond) {
t.Fatal("error message")
}
It's a bit tedious. So I'd like to achieve the following
CHECK(cond, "error message")
So I attempted this
func CHECK(t *testing.T, cond bool, fmt string, a ...interface{}) {
if !cond {
t.Fatal(fmt, a)
}
}
If it were a C macro it would've worked perfectly. But in Go, the line number where the failure is is wrong.
Is there a fix for this?
Sadly you can't do that.
A workaround would be to get the line / function yourself, something like the trace function from https://stackoverflow.com/a/25954534/145587.
You could possibly make use of runtime.Callers()+runtime.Caller(): the first one gives you the call stack while the second allows to extract the debug info about any arbitrary stack frame (obtained from that list).
Your CHECK() function is always one function call down the place the check should have happened at if it was a macro, so you can inspect the stack frame just above.
Update: the only functon which is really needed is runtime.Caller(). Here's your case, simplified:
package main
import (
"runtime"
"testing"
)
func CHECK(t *testing.T, cond bool) {
if !cond {
_, fname, lineno, ok := runtime.Caller(1)
if !ok {
fname, lineno = "<UNKNOWN>", -1
}
t.Fatalf("FAIL: %s:%d", fname, lineno)
}
}
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
CHECK(t, 12 == 13)
}
When saved as check_test.go and run via go test, it produces:
$ go test
--- FAIL: TestFoo (0.00 seconds)
check_test.go:14: FAIL: /home/kostix/devel/go/src/check/check_test.go:19
FAIL
exit status 1
FAIL check 0.001s
where line 19 is the line a call to CHECK() is located inside TestFoo().
While the above answer to use CHECK() function will work, I think that the actual answer is code readibility. Much of Go has been designed as a compromise to increase readibility among the community as a whole. See gofmt for example. Most people will agree that it's format is not best for every case. But having a convention agreed to by all is a huge plus for Go. The same answer is to your question. Go is for writing code for your peers, not for yourself. So don't think "I prefer this." Think "what will people reading my code understand."
Your original code should be like this, without parenthesis.
if !cond {
t.Fatal("error message")
}
This is idiomatic and every Go coder will recognize it instantly. That is the point.
Related
I'm developing a scala application with play framework, but i got something strange.
i can't stop the execution nor throwing an error in order to send a response for the client, it always continue the code and it always returning okay, however i made a dummy function that it should return a bad request but unfortunately it is returning OK here is what i wrote. any help will be appreciated
def foo(locale: String, orderId: Int) = Action { implicit request => {
val x=4+7;
if(x==11){
BadRequest(JsonHelper.convertToJson("Bad bad it is really bad "))
}
OK(JsonHelper.convertToJson("Well Done"))
}
}
the above code returning OK Well done.
To make your code return a BadRequest, add an else:
def foo(locale: String, orderId: Int) = Action { implicit request => {
val x = 4 + 7;
if (x == 11)
BadRequest(JsonHelper.convertToJson("Bad bad it is really bad "))
else // <---
OK(JsonHelper.convertToJson("Well Done"))
}}
Your problem is your if without curly braces.
refered to this link :https://docs.scala-lang.org/style/control-structures.html#curly-braces
if - Omit braces if you have an else clause. Otherwise, surround the
contents with curly braces even if the contents are only a single
line.
so you can just suuround the BadRequest with curly braces or add an else statement between your Bad and OK instruction. Be careful, don't forget the indentation !
edit 20/12/2017 >> un scala the last instruction is implicitly returned. Your last instruction is OK, so it returns OK.
Add explicit return statement in your if block or add an else statement.
Apple's documentation of the NSString.appendingPathComponent(_:) describes:
The method works as expected on macOS but fails on linux. Is there any workaround? Is this a feature or bug? Where can we report this?
Run online
import Foundation
extension String {
func appendingPathComponent(_ str: String) -> String {
return NSString(string: self).appendingPathComponent(str)
}
}
// prints correctly: "/tmp/scratch.tiff"
print("/tmp".appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff"))
// should print: "/tmp/scratch.tiff" but prints "/tmp//scratch.tiff"
print("/tmp/".appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff"))
// prints correctly: "/scratch.tiff"
print("/".appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff"))
// should print: "scratch.tiff" but prints "/scratch.tiff"
print("".appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff"))
It's definitely a bug, since it runs counter to the documentation. One of them needs to be fixed and I think it's the code. Open a new bug here.
With Swift, Apple removed all these path APIs from String, which has been a poor fit in my opinion. Apple's preferred method to do path manipulation is with URL:
print(URL(fileURLWithPath: "/tmp").appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff").path)
print(URL(fileURLWithPath: "/tmp/").appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff").path)
print(URL(fileURLWithPath: "/").appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff").path)
print(URL(fileURLWithPath: "").appendingPathComponent("scratch.tiff").path)
The last line behaves differently from NSString. It appends scratch.tiff to the current directory. In other word, it's expanded form of ./scratch.tiff
I have a function in scala which has no return-value (so unit). This function can sometimes fail (if the user provided parameters are not valid). If I were on java, I would simply throw an exception. But on scala (although the same thing is possible), it is suggested to not use exceptions.
I perfectly know how to use Option or Try, but they all only make sense if you have something valid to return.
For example, think of a (imaginary) addPrintJob(printJob: printJob): Unit command which adds a print job to a printer. The job definition could now be invalid and the user should be notified of this.
I see the following two alternatives:
Use exceptions anyway
Return something from the method (like a "print job identifier") and then return a Option/Either/Try of that type. But this means adding a return value just for the sake of error handling.
What are the best practices here?
You are too deep into FP :-)
You want to know whether the method is successful or not - return a Boolean!
According to this Throwing exceptions in Scala, what is the "official rule" Throwing exceptions in scala is not advised as because it breaks the control flow. In my opinion you should throw an exception in scala only when something significant has gone wrong and normal flow should not be continued.
For all other cases it generally better to return the status/result of the operation that was performed. scala Option and Either serve this purpose. imho A function which does not return any value is a bad practice.
For the given example of the addPrintJob I would return an job identifier (as suggested by #marstran in comments), if this is not possible the status of addPrintJob.
The problem is that usually when you have to model things for a specific method it is not about having success or failure ( true or false ) or ( 0 or 1 - Unit exit codes wise ) or ( 0 or 1 - true or false interpolation wise ) , but about returning status info and a msg , thus the most simplest technique I use ( whenever code review naysayers/dickheads/besserwissers are not around ) is that
val msg = "unknown error has occurred during ..."
val ret = 1 // defined in the beginning of the method, means "unknown error"
.... // action
ret = 0 // when you finally succeeded to implement FULLY what THIS method was supposed to to
msg = "" // you could say something like ok , but usually end-users are not interested in your ok msgs , they want the stuff to work ...
at the end always return a tuple
return ( ret , msg )
or if you have a data as well ( lets say a spark data frame )
return ( ret , msg , Some(df))
Using return is more obvious, although not required ( for the purists ) ...
Now because ret is just a stupid int, you could quickly turn more complex status codes into more complex Enums , objects or whatnot , but the point is that you should not introduce more complexity than it is needed into your code in the beginning , let it grow organically ...
and of course the caller would call like
( ret , msg , mayBeDf ) = myFancyFunc(someparam, etc)
Thus exceptions would mean truly error situations and you will avoid messy try catch jungles ...
I know this answer WILL GET down-voted , because well there are too much guys from universities with however bright resumes writing whatever brilliant algos and stuff ending-up into the spagetti code we all are sick of and not something as simple as possible but not simpler and of course something that WORKS.
BUT, if you need only ok/nok control flow and chaining, here is bit more elaborated ok,nok example, which does really throw exception, which of course you would have to trap on an upper level , which works for spark:
/**
* a not so fancy way of failing asap, on first failing link in the control chain
* #return true if valid, false if not
*/
def isValid(): Boolean = {
val lst = List(
isValidForEmptyDF() _,
isValidForFoo() _,
isValidForBar() _
)
!lst.exists(!_()) // and fail asap ...
}
def isValidForEmptyDF()(): Boolean = {
val specsAreMatched: Boolean = true
try {
if (df.rdd.isEmpty) {
msg = "the file: " + uri + " is empty"
!specsAreMatched
} else {
specsAreMatched
}
} catch {
case jle: java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException => {
msg = msg + jle.getMessage
return false
}
case e: Exception => {
msg = msg + e.getMessage()
return false
}
}
}
Disclaimer: my colleague helped me with the fancy functions syntax ...
I'm trying to parse a macro similar to this one:
annoying!({
hello({
// some stuff
});
})
Trying to do this with a procedural macro definition similar to the following, but I'm getting a behaviour I didn't expect and I'm not sure I'm doing something I'm not supposed to or I found a bug. In the following example, I'm trying to find the line where each block is,
for the first block (the one just inside annoying!) it reports the correct line, but for the inner block, when I try to print them it's always 1, no matter where the code is etc.
#![crate_type="dylib"]
#![feature(macro_rules, plugin_registrar)]
extern crate syntax;
extern crate rustc;
use macro_result::MacroResult;
use rustc::plugin::Registry;
use syntax::ext::base::{ExtCtxt, MacResult};
use syntax::ext::quote::rt::ToTokens;
use syntax::codemap::Span;
use syntax::ast;
use syntax::parse::tts_to_parser;
mod macro_result;
#[plugin_registrar]
pub fn plugin_registrar(registry: &mut Registry) {
registry.register_macro("annoying", macro_annoying);
}
pub fn macro_annoying(cx: &mut ExtCtxt, _: Span, tts: &[ast::TokenTree]) -> Box<MacResult> {
let mut parser = cx.new_parser_from_tts(tts);
let lo = cx.codemap().lookup_char_pos(parser.span.lo);
let hi = cx.codemap().lookup_char_pos(parser.span.hi);
println!("FIRST LO {}", lo.line); // real line for annoying! all cool
println!("FIRST HI {}", hi.line); // real line for annoying! all cool
let block_tokens = parser.parse_block().to_tokens(cx);
let mut block_parser = tts_to_parser(cx.parse_sess(), block_tokens, cx.cfg());
block_parser.bump(); // skip {
block_parser.parse_ident(); // hello
block_parser.bump(); // skip (
// block lines
let lo = cx.codemap().lookup_char_pos(block_parser.span.lo);
let hi = cx.codemap().lookup_char_pos(block_parser.span.hi);
println!("INNER LO {}", lo.line); // line 1? wtf?
println!("INNER HI {}", hi.line); // line 1? wtf?
MacroResult::new(vec![])
}
I think the problem might be the fact that I'm creating a second parser to parse the inner block, and that might be making the Span types inside it go crazy, but I'm not sure that's the problem or how to keep going from here. The reason I'm creating this second parser is so I can recursively parse what's inside each of the blocks, I might be doing something I'm not supposed to, in which case a better suggestion would be very welcome.
I believe this is #15962 (and #16472), to_tokens has a generally horrible implementation. Specifically, anything non-trivial uses ToSource, which just turns the code to a string, and then retokenises that (yes, it's not great at all!).
Until those issues are fixed, you should just handle the original tts directly as much as possible. You could approximate the right span using the .span of the parsed block (i.e. return value of parse_block), which will at least focus the user's attention on the right area.
I have a long string similar to this:
"tag1, tag2, tag3, tag4"
Now in my play template I would like to create a foreach loop like this:
#posts.foreach { post =>
#for(tag <- #post.tags.split(",")) {
<span>#tag</span>
}
}
With this, I'm getting this error: ')' expected but '}' found.
I switched ) for a } & it just throws back more errors.
How would I do this in Play! using Scala?
Thx in advance
With the help of #Xyzk, here's the answer: stackoverflow.com/questions/13860227/split-string-assignment
Posting this because the answer marked correct isn't necessarily true, as pointed out in my comment. There are only two things wrong with the original code. One, the foreach returns Unit, so it has no output. The code should actually run, but nothing would get printed to the page. Two, you don't need the magic # symbol within #for(...).
This will work:
#for(post <- posts)
#for(tag <- post.tags.split(",")) {
<span>#tag</span>
}
}
There is in fact nothing wrong with using other functions in play templates.
This should be the problem
#for(tag <- post.tags.split(",")) {
<span>#tag</span>
}