I have to implement a Macro which replaces the implementation of a class by a class of another implementation, if a library does not exist. The reason is that users might not be willing to install a complex library (say the name is complex.jar). It is very important that the code compiles even if the library is not present.
Practical Example:
Think of e.g. a tool for computing complex mathematical functions. Let us assume that we now want to add the functionality of plotting the result. For this we use Matlab (I know there are others, this is just an example). Let us assume that Matlab has a jar file. Since not all users have Matlab installed, I want that my code compiles also without this jar although it uses Methods from this jar.
Example:
#ReplaceMeIfLibDoesNotExist("complex","DefaultConnector.scala")
class ComplexConnector{
import complex._;
def connect(){
complex = new ComplexLibrary(); // part of complex.jar
}
}
class DefaultConnector{
def connect(){
println("Currently not supported. Install complex.jar")
}
}
Would something like that work? How would the Macro implementation look like? Or is there some more elegant way of doing things like that? It would be nice to have a concrete code example.
Thank you very much in advance.
I don't think a macro is appropriate for this - macros act at compile time, whereas it sounds like you want to change functionality based on which libraries are available at runtime. I would suggest something along the lines of SLF4J's static binding approach - load the ComplexLibrary via a static method which is implemented differently in your connector-complex.jar from your base jar.
Related
I am pondering over a few different ways of writing utility classes/functions. By utility I mean a part of code being reused in many places in the project. For example a set of formatting functions for the date & time handling.
I've got Java background, where there was a tendency to write
class UtilsXyz {
public static doSth(){...};
public static doSthElse(){...};
}
which I find hard to unit test because of their static nature. The other way is to inject here and there utility classes without static members.
In Dart you can use both attitudes, but I find other techniques more idiomatic:
mixins
Widely used and recommended in many articles for utility functions. But I find their nature to be a solution to infamous diamond problem rather than utility classes. And they're not very readable. Although I can imagine more focused utility functions, which pertain only Widgets, or only Presenters, only UseCases etc. They seem to be natural then.
extension functions
It's somehow natural to write '2023-01-29'.formatNicely(), but I'd like to be able to mock utility function, and you cannot mock extension functions.
global functions
Last not least, so far I find them the most natural (in terms of idiomatic Dart) way of providing utilities. I can unit test them, they're widely accessible, and doesn't look weird like mixins. I can also import them with as keyword to give some input for a reader where currently used function actually come from.
Does anybody have some experience with the best practices for utilities and is willing to share them? Am I missing something?
To write utility functions in an idiomatic way for Dart, your options are either extension methods or global functions.
You can see that they have a linter rule quoting this problem:
AVOID defining a class that contains only static members.
Creating classes with the sole purpose of providing utility or otherwise static methods is discouraged. Dart allows functions to exist outside of classes for this very reason.
https://dart-lang.github.io/linter/lints/avoid_classes_with_only_static_members.html.
Extension methods.
but I'd like to unit test some utility functions, and you cannot test extension functions, because they're static.
I did not find any resource that points that the extension methods are static, neither in StackOverflow or the Dart extension documentation. Although extension can have static methods themselves. Also, there is an open issue about supporting static extension members.
So, I think extensions are testable as well.
To test extension methods you have 2 options:
Import the extension name and use the extension syntax inside the tests.
Write an equivalent global utility function test it instead and make the extension method call this global function (I do not recommend this because if someone changes the extension method, the test will not be able to caught).
EDIT: as jamesdlin mentioned, the extension themselves can be tested but they cannot be mocked since they need to be resolved in compile time.
Global functions.
To test global functions, just import and test it.
I think the global functions are pretty straightforward:
This is the most simple, idiomatic way to write utility functions, this does not trigger any "wtf" flag when someone reads your code (like mixins), even Dart beginners.
This also takes advantage of the Dart top-level functions feature.
That's why I prefer this approach for utility functions that are not attached to any other classes.
And, if you are writing a library/package, the annotation #visibleForTesting may fall helpful for you (This annotation is from https://pub.dev/packages/meta).
I have a relatively large Scala code base that does not use named parameters for any function/class calls. Rather than going in and manually entering it, which would be a very tedious process, I was looking at a formatter to do the job. The best I found is scalariform, but I'm not sure whether I can even write a rule for something so complex.
I'm curious if anyone has ran into a similar problem and found a powerful formatter.
The Scala Refactoring library might be something you could use. You will need some knowledge of Scala's Abstract Syntax Tree representation.
Why do you want to use named parameters throughout your code base? I like IntelliJ's default which is to suggest to name boolean arguments (only).
The only ways I am aware of, aren't "direct":
converting to ANTLR format and using its own visualizer
VISUALLANGLAB, which it seems to require an entire mouse-clicks "rewrite"
implementing a converter by myself (which would be funny, but time-consuming)
second link below
Related:
comparison
wrapper
a 3rd party attempt
The second link suggests to debug adding an implicitly method to the parsers:
implicit def toLogged(name:String) = new {
def !! = log(p)(name)
}
May be an AST would be more feasible/usefull; but the question remains similar.
I might have misunderstood your question.
Scala parser combinators are used to parse strings to instances of types that you can use (either custom or built-in). The result is a structure of Scala instances that you decide, this could be anything.
You could create a parser that parses your arbitrary string into instances of a well known java structure for example ECore.
Without a usecase it's hard to suggest the best road for your problem. Maybe Xtext can help you: http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/. Xtext has quite a few built-in features, however it's an Eclipse plugin and you might need something else.
Using perl and TAP, I have written a lot of selenium tests and saved them in *.t files.
I have created some helper functions, put them into a non-object oriented package, say My::Util::SeleniumHelper.
All functions are exported from this module.
In the beginning, one package was sufficient, now the single-module API contains quite a few unrelated functions. These functions are called, for example make_sel(),
head_ok(),
cms_logout(),
cms_login(),
cms_clickthru_simple(),
selenium_rc_running(),
treecontrol_toggles() - you get the idea.
Moreover, many blocks of code in the t-files are still redundant, making the .t file look like a template.
Thus, I want to give my *.t code a more OO design.
Any ideas on how to design the new API?
Essentially, I am also looking for code examples (here, or on the internet) where someone has extended the selenium object in a clever way. It does not have to be in perl.
Would it be useful to add methods to the Test::WWW::Selenium object $sel?
$sel->my_click_ok()
I should I try to override the $sel object?, Deriving a Test::WWW::Selenium::Customized class from Test::WWW::Selenium
This would violate the "Prefer composition over inheritance" idiom
Should I wrap the selenium object into another object using composition?
$myobj->{sel}->click_ok()
Here are some more requirements or thoughts:
I also want to use the pageObjects Pattern/Idiom. Not doing so yet.
Maybe so
$myobj->{current_page}->loginbox
or
$myobj->do_stuff($current_page->loginbox)
I noted that in most cases, basically, I'd like to give the selenium method something like an Moose's around() modifier. Do th standard thing, but do some things before and after.
However, I prefer to not use Moose here because the tests need to run on a few different machines, and don't want to install Moose and all its dependencies on all these PCs. I am not saying that is impossible to use moose, however I did not yet use non-moose objects (Test::WWW::Selenium) and moose objects together.
I'm using Moose and delegation to extend Test::WWW::Selenium. The only thing thats in the extension is configuration stuff (host, port, browser, etc). Everything else is in roles.
Making a custom class inheriting from the Selenium one seems completely reasonable in this case. Eric's Moose delegation solution is a little cleaner; but a bit more complicated too.
I'm subclassing Test::WWW::Selenium. new {} needs to call SUPER, but then on, it looks and tastes like the parent. I've got a new open() that lints the HTML and checks links (memoized of course).
All,
Wanted to get a few thoughts on this. Lately I am becoming more and more of a subscriber of "purist" DI/IOC principles when designing/developing. Part of this (a big part) involves making sure there is little coupling between my classes, and that their dependencies are resolved via the constructor (there are certainly other ways of managing this, but you get the idea).
My basic premise is that extension methods violate the principles of DI/IOC.
I created the following extension method that I use to ensure that the strings inserted into database tables are truncated to the right size:
public static class StringExtensions
{
public static string TruncateToSize(this string input, int maxLength)
{
int lengthToUse = maxLength;
if (input.Length < maxLength)
{
lengthToUse = input.Length;
}
return input.Substring(0, lengthToUse);
}
}
I can then call my string from within another class like so:
string myString = "myValue.TruncateThisPartPlease.";
myString.TruncateToSize(8);
A fair translation of this without using an extension method would be:
string myString = "myValue.TruncateThisPartPlease.";
StaticStringUtil.TruncateToSize(myString, 8);
Any class that uses either of the above examples could not be tested independently of the class that contains the TruncateToSize method (TypeMock aside). If I were not using an extension method, and I did not want to create a static dependency, it would look more like:
string myString = "myValue.TruncateThisPartPlease.";
_stringUtil.TruncateToSize(myString, 8);
In the last example, the _stringUtil dependency would be resolved via the constructor and the class could be tested with no dependency on the actual TruncateToSize method's class (it could be easily mocked).
From my perspective, the first two examples rely on static dependencies (one explicit, one hidden), while the second inverts the dependency and provides reduced coupling and better testability.
So does the use of extension methods conflict with DI/IOC principles? If you're a subscriber of IOC methodology, do you avoid using extension methods?
I think it's fine - because it's not like TruncateToSize is a realistically replaceable component. It's a method which will only ever need to do a single thing.
You don't need to be able to mock out everything - just services which either disrupt unit testing (file access etc) or ones which you want to test in terms of genuine dependencies. If you were using it to perform authentication or something like that, it would be a very different matter... but just doing a straight string operation which has absolutely no configurability, different implementation options etc - there's no point in viewing that as a dependency in the normal sense.
To put it another way: if TruncateToSize were a genuine member of String, would you even think twice about using it? Do you try to mock out integer arithmetic as well, introducing IInt32Adder etc? Of course not. This is just the same, it's only that you happen to be supplying the implementation. Unit test the heck out of TruncateToSize and don't worry about it.
I see where you are coming from, however, if you are trying to mock out the functionality of an extension method, I believe you are using them incorrectly. Extension methods should be used to perform a task that would simply be inconvenient syntactically without them. Your TruncateToLength is a good example.
Testing TruncateToLength would not involve mocking it out, it would simply involve the creation of a few strings and testing that the method actually returned the proper value.
On the other hand, if you have code in your data layer contained in extension methods that is accessing your data store, then yes, you have a problem and testing is going to become an issue.
I typically only use extension methods in order to provide syntactic sugar for small, simple operations.
Extension methods, partial classes and dynamic objects. I really like them, however you must tread carefully , there be monsters here.
I would take a look at dynamic languages and see how they cope with these sort of problems on a day to day basis, its really enlightening. Especially when they have nothing to stop them from doing stupid things apart from good design and discipline. Everything is dynamic at run time, the only thing to stop them is the computer throwing a major run time error. "Duck Typing" is the maddest thing I have ever seen, good code is down to good program design, respect for others in your team, and the trust that every member, although have the ability to do some wacky things choose not to because good design leads to better results.
As for your test scenario with mock objects/ICO/DI, would you really put some heavy duty work in an extension method or just some simple static stuff that operate in a functional type way? I tend to use them like you would in a functional programming style, input goes in, results come out with no magic in the middle, just straight up framework classes that you know the guys at MS have designed and tested :P that you can rely on.
If your are doing some heavy lifting stuff using extension methods I would look at your program design again, check out your CRC designs, Class models, Use Cases, DFD's, action diagrams or whatever you like to use and figure out where in this design you planned to put this stuff in an extension method instead of a proper class.
At the end of the day, you can only test against your system design and not code outside of your scope. If you going to use extension classes, my advice would be to look at Object Composition models instead and use inheritance only when there is a very good reason.
Object Composition always wins out with me as they produce solid code. You can plug them in, take them out and do what you like with them. Mind you this all depends on whether you use Interfaces or not as part of your design. Also if you use Composition classes, the class hierarchy tree gets flattened into discrete classes and there are fewer places where your extension method will be picked up through inherited classes.
If you must use a class that acts upon another class as is the case with extension methods, look at the visitor pattern first and decide if its a better route.
Its a pain because they are hard to mock. I usually use one of these strategies
Yep, scrap the extension its a PITA to mock out
Use the extension and just test that it did the right thing. i.e. pass data into the truncate and check it got truncated
If it's not some trivial thing, and I HAVE to mock it, I'll make my extension class have a setter for the service it uses, and set that in the test code.
i.e.
static class TruncateExtensions{
public ITruncateService Service {private get;set;}
public string TruncateToSize(string s, int size)
{
return (Service ?? Service = new MyDefaultTranslationServiceImpl()). TruncateToSize(s, size);
}
}
This is a bit scary because someone might set the service when they shouldn't, but I'm a little cavalier sometimes, and if it was really important, I could do something clever with #if TEST flags, or the ServiceLocator pattern to avoid the setter being used in production.