I would need to map classA fields to classB fields along with localization i.e ClassA field values needs to be converted to localized value before it mapped to classB field. Locale should be passed as an argument to mapper in order get the localized value. Is there any option to pass runtime argument to mapper along with Source and Target classes?
Thanks.
Yes, you can do this. Let's get this example from Dozer docs
BeanMappingBuilder builder = new BeanMappingBuilder() {
protected void configure() {
mapping(Bean.class, Bean.class,
TypeMappingOptions.oneWay(),
mapId("A"),
mapNull(true)
)
.exclude("excluded")
.fields("src", "dest",
copyByReference(),
collectionStrategy(true,
RelationshipType.NON_CUMULATIVE),
hintA(String.class),
hintB(Integer.class),
FieldsMappingOptions.oneWay(),
useMapId("A"),
customConverterId("id")
)
.fields("src", "dest",
customConverter("org.dozer.CustomConverter")
);
}
};
Here we can find an example of dynamically configuration definition. Take a look at this part
customConverter("org.dozer.CustomConverter")
Here you can define a custom converter using this method
FieldsMappingOption customConverter(final String type)
But it has another version
customConverter(final Class<? extends CustomConverter> type, final String parameter)
And that's your case. You can write smth like
customConverter(com.yourproject.TranslatorConverter.class, "en")
in your dynamic code base config to define a parameter for you converter. How to write an implementation of CustumConverter which apply a parameter - take a look here
Related
I want that every time I use yup.string(), it will add a specific default value for it
for example:
const schema = yup.object({
text: yup.string()// I want it to also do .default('some string') in the background,
});
or - another option - is there any way to set the default value after creating the scheme? something like setDefault('text', 'some string')
The closest solution I came across to solve your issue is extending your string with a custom method that implements your needs. To do that you need to use addMethod from yup:
import { addMethod, string } from 'yup';
addMethod(string, 'append', function append(appendStr) {
return this.transform((value) => `${value}${appendStr}`);
});
Now, you can use your custom method (append) and apply it to any string you want:
string().append('~~~~').cast('hi'); // 'hi~~~~'
If you want to add the custom method to all your schema types like date, number, etc..., you need to extend the abstract base class Schema:
import { addMethod, Schema } from 'yup';
addMethod(Schema, 'myCustomMethod', ...)
Extra
For Typescript
In your type definition file, you need to declare module yup with your custom method's arguments and return types:
// globals.d.ts
import { StringSchema } from "yup";
declare module 'yup' {
interface StringSchema<TType, TContext, TDefault, TFlags> {
append(appendStr: string): this;
}
}
Unknow behavior for transform method
While I was trying to extend the functionality of the date schema with a custom method that transform the date that user enters from DD-MM-YYY to YYYY-MM-DD, the custom method broke after I used it with other methods like min, max for example.
// `dayMonthYear` should transform "31-12-2022"
// to "2022-12-31" but for some reason it kept
// ignoring the `cast` date and tried to transform
// `1900` instead!
Yup.date().dayMonthYear().min(1900).max(2100).required().cast("31-12-2022") // error
To work around this issue, I appended my custom method at the end of my schema chain:
Yup.date().min(1900).max(2100).required().cast("31-12-2022").dayMonthYear() // works as expected
This issue is mentioned in this GH ticket which I recommend going through it as it's going more in-depth on how to add custom methods with Typescript.
References
addMethod
Extending built-in schema with new methods
Example of addMethod in Typescript (GH ticket)
I'd like to store instances of models in a common provider using their classes or interfaces as a keys and then pop them up by class references. I have written some code:
class Provider {
public function new() { }
public function set<T:Any>(instance:T, ?type:Class<T>) {
if (type == null)
type = Type.getClass(instance);
if (type != null && instance != null)
map.set(type, instance);
}
public function get<T:Any>(type:Class<T>):Null<T> {
return cast map.get(type);
}
var map = new Map<Class<Any>, Any>();
}
...alas, it's even doesn't compile.
Probably I have to use qualified class name as a key rather than class/interface reference? But I'd like to keep neat get function design that takes type as argument and returns object just of type taken, without additional type casting.
Is it possible or should I change my approach to this problem?
The issue of using Class<T> as a Map key come up every so often, here is a related discussion. The naive approach of Map<Class<T>, T> fails to compile with something like this:
Abstract haxe.ds.Map has no #:to function that accepts haxe.IMap<Class<Main.T>, Main.T>`
There's several different approaches to this problem:
One can use Type reflection to obtain the fully qualified name of a class instance, and then use that as a key in a Map<String, T>:
var map = new Map<String, Any>();
var name = Type.getClassName(Main);
map[name] = value;
For convenience, you would probably want to have a wrapper that does this for you, such as this ClassMap implementation.
A simpler solution is to simply "trick" Haxe into compiling it by using an empty structure type ({}) as the key type. This causes ObjectMap to be chosen as the underlying map implementation.
var map = new Map<{}, Any>();
map[Main] = value;
However, that allows you to use things as keys that are not of type Class<T>, such as:
map[{foo: "bar"}] = value;
The type safety issues of the previous approach can be remedied by using this ClassKey abstract:
#:coreType abstract ClassKey from Class<Dynamic> to {} {}
This still uses ObjectMap as the underlying map implementation due to the to {} implicit cast. However, using a structure as a key now fails at compile time:
var map = new Map<ClassKey, Any>();
map[{foo: "bar"}] = value; // No #:arrayAccess function accepts arguments [...]
I want to create specific Object according to the type argument.
Pseudo code looks like this.
sub new {
my $type = shift;
if($type eq "S1") {$interface = X->new(); }
if($type eq "S2") {$interface = Y->new(); }
etc...
return $interface;
}
Options might be:
Substitute "package" name with $type argument. Requires package name coordination with $type.
Use Hash{S1 => X} in the Master constructor to select Value according to $type passed. Requires Hash maintenance when adding new
Object types.
I don't like any of above. Looking trully polimorphic way to accomplish that.
Thank You,
k
Your best option would likely be to use a factory pattern. A factory method takes the parameters for creating an instance of your class, then decides which object to instantiate and return from that. This can also make dependency injection easier for testing.
You'd probably be looking at something like this (in Java-esque code), with an employee object:
public class EmployeeFactory
{
public static create(String type)
{
switch (type) {
case type1:
return new EmployeeTypeOne();
case type2:
return new EmployeeTypeTwo();
default:
throw new Exception("Unrecognized type");
}
}
}
Your employees would inherit from a common interface or abstract class. You can use the factory to handle constructor parameters as well if you prefer, just try to keep things fairly reasonable (don't pass a million parameters - the factory should internally handle complex objects)
See http://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceConstructorWithFactoryMethod.html for more information.
You might like Module::PluginFinder for that. Create all your specific types in a specific namespace and give them each some identifying (constant? sub?) that the main dispatcher will then use to identify which class handles a given type.
I could use some really good links that explain Generics and how to use them. But I also have a very specific question, relater to working on a current project.
Given this class constructor:
public class SecuredDomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity> : DomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity>
where TDomainContext : DomainContext, new()
where TEntity : Entity, new()
public SecuredDomainViewModel(TDomainContext domainContext, ProtectedItem protectedItem)
: base(domainContext)
{
this.protectedItem = protectedItem;
}
And its creation this way:
DomainViewModel d;
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Assuming I have 20 different EntityTypes within MyContext, is there any easier way to call the constructor without a large switch statement?
Also, since d is DomainViewModel and I later need to access methods from SecuredDomainViewModel, it seems I need to do this:
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
But again "MyEntityType" could actually be one of 20 diffent types. Is there anyway to write these types of statements where MyEntityType is returned from some sort of Reflection?
Additional Info for Clarification:
I will investigate ConstructorInfo, but I think I may have incorrectly described what I'm looking to do.
Assume I have the DomainViewModel, d in my original posting.
This may have been constructed via three possible ways:
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Later, I need to access methods on the SecuredDomainViewModel, which currently must be called this way:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer)d).CanEditEntity)
Assuming I have N+ entity types in this context, what I was hoping to be able to do is
something like this with one call:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, CurrentEntityType)d).CanEditEntity)
Where CurrentEntityType was some sort of function or other type of call that returned Order, Invoice or Consumer based on the current item entity type.
Is that possible?
You can create a non-generic interface that has the CanEditEntity property on it, make SecuredDomainViewModel inherit off that, then call the property through the interface...
Also, the new() constructor allows you to call a constructor on a generic type that has no arguments (so you can just write new TEntity()), but if you want to call a constructor that has parameters one handy trick I use is to pass it in as a delegate:
public void Method<T>(Func<string, bool, T> ctor) {
// ...
T newobj = ctor("foo", true);
// ...
}
//called later...
Method((s, b) => new MyClass(s, b));
I can't help on the links, and likely not on the type either.
Constructor
If you have the Type, you can get the constructor:
ConstructorInfo construtor = typeof(MyEntityType).GetConstructor(new object[]{TDomainContext, ProtectedItem});
Type
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I can only see something like
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, entityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
{
entityType=typeof(Orders)
}
being what you want.
Is it possible to get class of field with null value in haxe?
The function "Type.getClass" gets class of value (setted at runtime), but I need to get class defined in a compilation-time.
Function "getClassFields" returns only names of fields, without classes.
For example:
class MyCls
{
public static var i:Int = null;
public static var s:String = null;
}
trace(Type.getClass(MyCls.i)); // show "null", but I need to get Int
trace(Type.getClass(MyCls.s)); // show "null", but I need to get String
And in my situation I can't to change sources of class MyCls.
Thanks.
You can try Runtime Type Information. It's a Haxe feature which allow go get full description of a type in runtime.
http://haxe.org/manual/cr-rtti.html
Since you need to get the types for null fields, you really need to resort to Haxe's Runtime Type Information (RTTI) (as #ReallylUniqueName recomended).
import haxe.rtti.Rtti;
import haxe.rtti.CType;
class Test {
static function main()
{
if (!Rtti.hasRtti(MyCls))
throw "Please add #:rtti to class";
var rtti = Rtti.getRtti(MyCls);
for (sf in rtti.statics)
trace(sf.name, sf.type, CTypeTools.toString(sf.type));
}
}
Now, obviously, there's a catch...
RTTI requires a #:rtti metadata, but you said you cannot change the MyCls class to add it. The solution then is do add it through a macro in your build file. For instance, if you're using a .hxml file, it should then look like:
--interp
--macro addMetadata("#:rtti", "MyCls")
-main Test
With this and your own MyCls definition, the output would look like:
Test.hx:11: i,CAbstract(Int,{ length => 0 }),Int
Test.hx:11: s,CClass(String,{ length => 0 }),String