I have a Report class that several models inherit from (OverviewReport, CategoryReport, etc...). Each of these inherited classes has specific methods/attributes that need to be customized for that type of report.
The desired report type is passed in via the params hash, so I can do something like the following:
# reports_controller.rb
def index
case params[:type]
when "overview" then OverviewReport.new(...)
when "category" then CategoryReport.new(...)
...etc...
end
end
This works, but I would like to clean up the controller a little bit. I would like to be able to do this:
# reports_controller.rb
def index
#report = Report.new(params[:type], ...)
end
# report.rb class
def initialize(type, options)
case type
when "overview" then self = OverviewReport.new(type, options)
when "category" then self = CategoryReport.new(type, options)
end
end
However, you can't change the value of self, so how would you go about accomplishing this functionality?
The intent is the clean up the controller code and abstract away which report you're using, so I can call #report.some_method() and it will call the inherited-specific method.
Is there a clean solution to this, or am I stuck with a (somewhat) lengthy case statement in my controller?
One solution would be to use a "factory" class whose sole purpose is to instantiate the correct class:
# reports_controller.rb
def index
#report = AgnosticReport.new(type)
end
# agnostic_report.rb
def initialize(type)
case type
when "overview" then return OverviewReport.new(type)
when "category" then return CategoryReport.new(type)
...etc...
end
end
This is perfectly acceptable, but I was wondering if there was any need to add a "third" layer of classes to this situation.
Do you have the ability to change the type params passed?
If so I would use constantize
params[:type] being "Overview Report" or "Category Report" e.t.c.
then use
#report = params[:type].constantize.new
s = "OverviewReport",
s.constantize => OverviewReport
Related
I have already asked a question here where I basically require an instance of a base class to be converted into a subclass (or a new instance of the subclass to be created using the instance of the base class' properties). The conclusion seems to be that the best way to do this is to manually assign every property I need to transfer in the constructor of the base class.
While this is feasible in some cases, it certainly is not when there are many properties to transfer, or when the base class is subject to change — every time you add a property to the base class, the constructor needs to be changed too, so this solutions is inelegant.
I have searched online, and can't see any reason for why this kind of type-casting isn't implemented. The arguments I have seen so far describe this operation to 'not make any sense' (making a minivan from a car was an analogy I saw), question what to do about the non-inherited variables in the subclass, or claim that there must be some better solution for what was trying to be achieved.
As far as I can see, the operation doesn't need to 'make sense' as long as it's useful, so that isn't much of a good reason. What's wrong with adding a few more properties (and perhaps methods/overriding them) to change an instance into a subclass? In the case of the non-inherited variables, that can simply be solved by allowing this kind of type-cast only a constructor is added to the subclass or by just simply setting them to their default values. After all, constructors usually call MyBase.New(...) anyway. What's the difference between using the constructor of the base (essentially creating a new instance of the base) and using an instance which is already initialised? Lastly, I don't think the third argument is well-justified — there are times when all of the other solutions are inelegant.
So finally, is there any other reason for why this kind of casting isn't allowed, and is there an elegant way to circumvent this?
Edit:
Since I don't know a lot about this topic, I think I meant to say 'convert' rather than 'cast'. I'll also add an example to show what I'm trying to succeed. The conversion would only be allowed at the initialisation of the Subclass:
Class BaseClass
Dim x as Integer
Dim y as Integer
End Class
Class Subclass1 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim z as Integer
Sub New(Byval value As Integer)
'Standard initialisation method
MyBase.New()
z = value
End Sub
Sub New(Byval value As Integer, Byval baseInstance As BaseClass)
'Type conversion from base class to subclass
baseInstance.passAllproperties()
'This assigns all properties of baseInstance belonging to BaseClass to Me.
'Properties not in BaseClass (eg. if baseInstance is Subclass2) are ignored.
z = value
End Sub
End Class
Class Subclass2 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim v As Integer
End Class
What you describe is not casting. Have you ever heard the expression"to cast something in a different light"? It means to look at the same thing in a different way or to make the same thing look different. That is the exact way that the term "cast" is used in programming. When you cast, you do NOT change the type of the object but only the type of the reference used to access the object. If you want to cast from a base type to a derived type then the object you're referring to has to actually be that derived type. If it's not then you're not performing a cast but rather a conversion.
So, why can't you convert an instance of a base type to an instance of a derived type. Well, why would you be able to? Yes, it's something that might save writing a bit of code on occasion but does it actually make sense? Let's say that you have a base type with one property and a derived type that adds another property. Let's also say that that derived type has constructors that require you to provide a value for that second property. You're suggesting that the language should provide you with a way to magically convert an instance of the base class into an instance of the derived class, which would mean it would have to slow you to circumvent that rule defined by the author via the constructors. Why would that be a good thing?
Use System.Reflection to iterate over properties and fields of the base class and apply them to the derived class. This example includes a single public property and single public field, but will also work with multiple private/protected properties and fields. You can paste the entire example into a new console application to test it.
Imports System.Reflection
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim p As New Parent
p.Property1 = "abc"
p.Field1 = "def"
Dim c = New Child(p)
Console.WriteLine("Property1 = ""{0}"", Field1 = ""{1}""", c.Property1, c.Field1)
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
Class Parent
Public Property Property1 As String = "not set"
Public Property Field1 As String = "not set"
End Class
Class Child
Inherits Parent
Public Sub New(myParent As Parent)
Dim fieldInfo = GetType(Parent).GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each field In fieldInfo
field.SetValue(Me, field.GetValue(myParent))
Next
Dim propertyInfo = GetType(Parent).GetProperties(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each prop In propertyInfo
prop.SetValue(Me, prop.GetValue(myParent))
Next
End Sub
End Class
End Module
Output:
Property1 = "abc", Field1 = "def"
This solution is automated, so you won't need to change anything when adding or removing properties and fields in the base class.
In general, because of this:
Class TheBase
End Class
Class Derived1 : TheBase
Sub Foo()
End Sub
End Class
Class Derived2 : TheBase
Sub Bar()
End Sub
End Class
Sub Main()
Dim myDerived1 As New Derived1
' cast derived to base
Dim myTheBase = CType(myDerived1, TheBase)
' cast base to derived?
' but myTheBase is actually a Derived1
Dim myDerived2 As Derived2 = CType(myTheBase, Derived2)
' which function call would you like to succeed?
myDerived2.Foo()
myDerived2.Bar()
End Sub
I'm fairly new to lua and have the following problem with an assignment from a class:
We currently extend lua to support objects and inheritance. The Syntax for that is
Class{'MyClass',
attribute1 = String,
attribute2 = Number
}
Class{'MySubClass', MyClass,
attribute3 = Number
}
This works perfectly fine. The real problem lies within the next task: We should support "recursive types", that means a call like
Class{'MyClass', attribute = MyClass}
should result in an class with a field of the same type as the class. When this "class-constructor" is called the variable MyClass is nil, thats why the parameter table doesnt't have an entry attribute. How is it possible to access this attribute?
My first thought was using some kind of nil-table which gets returned every time the global __index is called with an unset key. This nil-table should behave like the normal nil, but can be checked for in the "class-constructor". The problem with this approach are comparisons like nil == unknown. This should return true, but as the __eq meta method of the nil-table is never called we cannot return true.
Is there another approach I'm currently just ignoring? Any hint is greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Edit:
Here the relevant part of the "testfile". The test by which the code is rated in class is another one and gets published later.
three = 3
print( three == 3 , "Should be true")
print( unknown == nil , "Should be true" )
Class{'AClass', name = String, ref = AClass}
function AClass:write()
print("AClass:write(), name of AClass:", self.name)
end
aclass = AClass:create("A. Class")
aclass:write()
Since MyClass is just a lookup in the global table (_G), you could mess with its metatable's __index to return a newly-defined MyClass object (which you would later need to fill with the details).
However, while feasible, such an implementation is
wildly unsafe, as you could end up with an undefined class (or worse, you may end up inadvertantly creating an infinite lookup loop. Trust me, I've been there)
very hard to debug, as every _G lookup for a non-existing variable will now return a newly created class object instead of nil (this problem could somewhat be reduced by requiring that class names start with an uppercase character)
If you go that route, be sure to also override __newindex.
How about providing the argument in string form?
Class{'MyClass', attribute = 'MyClass'}
Detect strings inside the implementation of Class and process them with _G[string] after creating the class
Or alternatively, use a function to delay the lookup:
Class{'MyClass', attribute = function() return MyClass end}
In our play application every controller function fetches data from the database (or some other way) and passes these values to the result
def index = Action { implicit request =>
val newsItems: List[String] = fetchNewsFromDB()
Ok(views.html.home.index(newsItems))
}
def fetchNewsFromDB() = List("Headline1", "Headline2")
I am writing tests using specifiactions (based on the documentation http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.2.x/ScalaTest)
According to this documentation by controller as follows. In the next test I want to make sure that the index page contains a headline. I do this by checking if there exists a div with the class "headline"
"Example Page#index" should {
"should contain a headline" in {
val controller = new TestController()
val result: Future[SimpleResult] = controller.index().apply(FakeRequest())
val bodyText: String = contentAsString(result)
bodyText.toLowerCase must contain("<div class=\"headline\"")
}
}
However I would rather check whether the list newsItems which the controller passes to the view is nonempty.
What is the best way to do this?
Is it possible to this in a generic way for which little modification of the controllers is required?
I too was frustrated that I couldn't intercept the parameters on their way to the template - and in fact it can become extremely difficult to even get the template to render at all in tests if you have a lot of "state" in your pages (for example, implicits that provide the user object, navigation helpers etc).
What I ended up doing was putting in an extra "seam" for testability in my controllers; in my tests, I extend the controller under test, replacing the HTML rendering function with a mocked one, which I can then use to verify the parameters.
Here's a simple example based on your "news" Action; first, the controller, which is no longer an object so we can extend it:
object Application extends ApplicationController
trait ApplicationController extends Controller {
def newsAction = Action {
Ok(renderNews("this is the news"))
}
def renderNews(s:List[String]):Html = html.sandbox(s)
}
The renderNews method gives us the all-important "test seam". I think it also actually improves the readability of controller methods too, which is nice :-)
Now, the unit test:
class ApplicationSpec extends Specification with Mockito {
val mockedNewsRenderer = mock[List[String] => Html]
val controller = new ApplicationController {
override def renderNews(s:List[String]) = mockedNewsRenderer(s)
}
"Application News Controller" should {
"Pass a non-empty list of news items to the template" in {
val result = controller.newsAction(FakeRequest())
status(result) must beEqualTo(200)
val captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(classOf[List[String]])
there was one(mockedNewsRenderer).apply(captor.capture())
val theArgument = captor.getValue
theArgument.isEmpty must beFalse
}
}
}
We create a mock to stand-in for the renderNews function, extend the controller so that we can substitute it in (note that we don't change anything else about it of course), and then call the action as normal. Note that we still get a standard Play Result so we can still check status codes etc, but then, we can use the Mockito verify functionality that's built into Specs2, together with Mockito's ArgumentCaptor facility to assert that our template was indeed called, and that it was supplied with a non-empty list of strings.
This approach has worked well for me - it makes it possible to get really good code coverage of your controllers with fast-running and easy-to-write unit tests.
You have a very good question and a very valid point on testing controllers, but I'm afraid it can't be done easily. The problem is that the views compile to Scala functions meaning when you call views.html.home.index(newsItems) it will return an object of Html, which already has the Html put together and compiled. If you would like to test what get's passed in you need to intercept it before the view is called.
To solve this you would have to rewrite your controllers, by moving all your business logic out of the controller and only have the necessary request handling code there. That would almost be easier to test.
I'm trying to extract the parameter from a Lift Menu.param within a snippet so that I can use it to create a named Comet. However, I get a NullPointerException when I try to pass the parameter to the snippet using SnippetDisptach in my Boot.scala, as suggested here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.lift/44299
I've created the Menu item as follows:
object AnItemPage {
// create a parameterized page
def menu = Menu.param[Item]("Item", "Item",
s => fetchItem(s), item => item._id.toString) / "item"
private def fetchItem(s:String) : Box[Item] = synchronized {
ItemDAO.findById(ObjectId.massageToObjectId(s))
}
}
I've added the menu to SiteMap. I've also created a Snippet which I would like to pick up the Item parameter. (I'm using fmpwizard's InsertNamedComet library here):
class AddCometItemPage(boxedItem: Box[Item]) extends InsertNamedComet with DispatchSnippet{
val item : Item = boxedItem.openOr(null)
override lazy val name= "comet_item_" + item._id.toString
override lazy val cometClass= "UserItemCometActor"
def dispatch = null
}
My next step is to crate an instance of this class as demonstrated by David Pollak here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.lift/44299
This is what I have added to my Boot.scala:
LiftRules.snippetDispatch.append {
case "item_page" => new AddCometItemPage(AnItemPage.menu.currentValue)
}
My item.html references this snippet:
<div class="lift:item_page">
I get the following null pointer exception when I compile and run this:
Exception occurred while processing /item/5114eb4044ae953cf863b786
Message: java.lang.NullPointerException
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.siteMap(Loc.scala:147)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.siteMap(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.allParams(Loc.scala:123)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.allParams(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.net$liftweb$sitemap$Loc$$staticValue(Loc.scala:87)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.net$liftweb$sitemap$Loc$$staticValue(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$paramValue$2.apply(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$paramValue$2.apply(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.paramValue(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.paramValue(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$currentValue$3.apply(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$currentValue$3.apply(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.currentValue(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.currentValue(Menu.scala:170)
bootstrap.liftweb.Boot$$anonfun$lift$8.apply(Boot.scala:107)
bootstrap.liftweb.Boot$$anonfun$lift$8.apply(Boot.scala:106)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$$anonfun$applyBox$1.apply(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$$anonfun$applyBox$1.apply(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.common.Full.map(Box.scala:553)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$.applyBox(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.http.LiftRules.snippet(LiftRules.scala:711)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance$1.apply(LiftSession.scala:1506)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance$1.apply(LiftSession.scala:1506)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession.net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance(LiftSession.scala:1505)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$locateAndCacheSnippet$1$1$$anonfun$apply$88.apply(LiftSession.scala:1670)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$locateAndCacheSnippet$1$1$$anonfun$apply$88.apply(LiftSession.scala:1669)
Has anybody any idea where I'm going wrong? I've not been able to find a lot of information on Menu.param.
Thank you very much for your help.
f
I have never tried what you are doing, so I am not sure the best way to accomplish it. The way you are using the Loc Param, you are extracting a variable from a URL pattern. In your case, http://server/item/ITEMID where ITEMID is the string representation of an Item, and which is the value that gets passed to the fetchItem function. The function call will not have a value if you just arbitrarily call it, and from what I can see you are requesting a value that is not initialized.
I would think there are two possible solutions. The first would be to use S.location instead of AnItemPage.menu.currentValue. It will return a Box[Loc[Any]] representing the Loc that is currently being accessed (with the parameters set). You can use that Loc to retrive currentValue and set your parameter.
The other option would be to instantiate the actor in your snippet. Something like this:
item.html
<div data-lift="AnItemPage">
<div id="mycomet"></div>
</div>
And then in your AnItemPage snippet, something like this:
class AnItemPage(item: Item) {
def render = "#mycomet" #> new AddCometItemPage(item).render
}
I haven't tested either of those, so they'll probably need some tweaking. Hopefully it will give you a general idea.
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.