I have the next JInvocation:
JInvocation jInvoke = JExpr.invoke(anotherPageInstance, method);
where anotherPageInstance is JVar and method is JMethod.
I do some actions on this JInvocation, and then I want to add it to test.body().invoke where test is JMethod.
The main problem is that I can't, because test.body().invoke has no option to get JInvocation as argument.
I can do the next: test.body().invoke(anotherPageInstance, method), but this doesn't help me, because I want to save the JInvocation, and just when some conditions are taking place, add this Jinvocation to the body (and as I mentions before, meanwhile I do some action on this JInvocation).
Any help?
You can add an invocation the body (JBlock) by using the add() method:
test.body().add(jInvoke);
Instead of instantiating JInvocation with JExpr.invoke(), use the JExpr factory methods:
public static JInvocation invoke(JExpression lhs,
JMethod method)
public static JInvocation invoke(JExpression lhs,
String method)
See JExpr.
Related
Im trying to load my model in my controller and tried this:
return Post::getAll();
got the error Non-static method Post::getAll() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context
The function in the model looks like this:
public function getAll()
{
return $posts = $this->all()->take(2)->get();
}
What's the correct way to load the model in a controller and then return it's contents?
You defined your method as non-static and you are trying to invoke it as static. That said...
1.if you want to invoke a static method, you should use the :: and define your method as static.
// Defining a static method in a Foo class.
public static function getAll() { /* code */ }
// Invoking that static method
Foo::getAll();
2.otherwise, if you want to invoke an instance method you should instance your class, use ->.
// Defining a non-static method in a Foo class.
public function getAll() { /* code */ }
// Invoking that non-static method.
$foo = new Foo();
$foo->getAll();
Note: In Laravel, almost all Eloquent methods return an instance of your model, allowing you to chain methods as shown below:
$foos = Foo::all()->take(10)->get();
In that code we are statically calling the all method via Facade. After that, all other methods are being called as instance methods.
Why not try adding Scope? Scope is a very good feature of Eloquent.
class User extends Eloquent {
public function scopePopular($query)
{
return $query->where('votes', '>', 100);
}
public function scopeWomen($query)
{
return $query->whereGender('W');
}
}
$users = User::popular()->women()->orderBy('created_at')->get();
Eloquent #scopes in Laravel Docs
TL;DR. You can get around this by expressing your queries as MyModel::query()->find(10); instead of MyModel::find(10);.
To the best of my knowledge, starting PhpStorm 2017.2 code inspection fails for methods such as MyModel::where(), MyModel::find(), etc (check this thread), and this could get quite annoying.
One (elegant) way to get around this is to explicitly call ::query() wherever it makes sense to. This will let you benefit from free auto-completion and a nice formatting/indentating for your queries.
Examples
BAD
Snippet where inspection complains about static method calls
// static call complaint
$myModel = MyModel::find(10);
// another poorly formatted query with code inspection complaints
$myFilteredModels = MyModel::where('is_foo', true)
->where('is_bar', false)
->get();
GOOD
Well formatted code with no complaints
// no complaint
$myModel = MyModel::query()->find(10);
// a nicely formatted and indented query with no complaints
$myFilteredModels = MyModel::query()
->where('is_foo', true)
->where('is_bar', false)
->get();
Just in case this helps someone, I was getting this error because I completely missed the stated fact that the scope prefix must not be used when calling a local scope. So if you defined a local scope in your model like this:
public function scopeRecentFirst($query)
{
return $query->orderBy('updated_at', 'desc');
}
You should call it like:
$CurrentUsers = \App\Models\Users::recentFirst()->get();
Note that the prefix scope is not present in the call.
Solution to the original question
You called a non-static method statically. To make a public function static in the model, would look like this:
public static function {
}
In General:
Post::get()
In this particular instance:
Post::take(2)->get()
One thing to be careful of, when defining relationships and scope, that I had an issue with that caused a 'non-static method should not be called statically' error is when they are named the same, for example:
public function category(){
return $this->belongsTo('App\Category');
}
public function scopeCategory(){
return $query->where('category', 1);
}
When I do the following, I get the non-static error:
Event::category()->get();
The issue, is that Laravel is using my relationship method called category, rather than my category scope (scopeCategory). This can be resolved by renaming the scope or the relationship. I chose to rename the relationship:
public function cat(){
return $this->belongsTo('App\Category', 'category_id');
}
Please observe that I defined the foreign key (category_id) because otherwise Laravel would have looked for cat_id instead, and it wouldn't have found it, as I had defined it as category_id in the database.
You can give like this
public static function getAll()
{
return $posts = $this->all()->take(2)->get();
}
And when you call statically inside your controller function also..
I've literally just arrived at the answer in my case.
I'm creating a system that has implemented a create method, so I was getting this actual error because I was accessing the overridden version not the one from Eloquent.
Hope that help?
Check if you do not have declared the method getAll() in the model. That causes the controller to think that you are calling a non-static method.
For use the syntax like return Post::getAll(); you should have a magic function __callStatic in your class where handle all static calls:
public static function __callStatic($method, $parameters)
{
return (new static)->$method(...$parameters);
}
I created an extension method that lets me treat a List as DbSet for testing purposes (actually, I found this idea in another question here on stack overflow, and it's been fairly useful). Coded as follows:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var queryable = sourceList.AsQueryable();
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(queryable.Provider);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(queryable.Expression);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(queryable.ElementType);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(queryable.GetEnumerator());
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Add(It.IsAny<T>())).Callback<T>(sourceList.Add);
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback(sourceList.Find);
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
I had been using Add for awhile, and that works perfectly. However, when I try to add the callback for Find, I get a compiler error saying that it can't convert a method group to an action. Why is sourceList.Add an Action, but sourceList.Find is a method group?
I'll admit I'm not particularly familiar with C# delegates, so it's likely I'm missing something very obvious. Thanks in advance.
The reason Add works is because the List<T>.Add method group contains a single method which takes a single argument of type T and returns void. This method has the same signature as an Action<T> which is one of the overloads of the Callback method (the one with a single generic type parameter, Callback<T>), therefore the List<T>.Add method group can be converted to an Action<T>.
With Find, you are trying to call the Callback method (as opposed to Callback<T>) which expects an Action parameter (as opposed to Action<T>). The difference here is that an Action does not take any parameters, but an Action<T> takes a single parameter of type T. The List<T>.Find method group cannot be converted to an Action because all the Find methods (there is only one anyway) take input parameters.
The following will compile:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<Predicate<T>>(t => sourceList.Find(t));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
Note that I have called .Callback<Predicate<T>> because the List<T>.Find method expects and argument of type Predicate. Also note I have had to write t => sourceList.Find(t) instead of sourceList.Find because Find returns a value (which means it doesn't match the signature of Action<Predicate<T>>). By writing it as a lambda expression the return value will be thrown away.
Note that although this compiles it will not actually work because the DbSet.Find method actually takes an object[] for it's parameter, not a Predicate<T>, so you will likely have to do something like this:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<object[]>(keyValues => sourceList.Find(keyValues.Contains));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
This last point has more to do with how to use the Moq library that how to use method groups, delegates and lambdas - there is all sorts of syntactic sugar going on with this line which is hiding what is actually relevant to the compiler and what isn't.
Looking at the addValues method below, this is not callable if I don't include the 'static' keyword. Why is this so?
namespace TryingMethods
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(addValues(3, 4));
}
public static int addValues(int left, int right)
{
return left + right;
}
}
}
It's because static method can only have acces to static variables and other static methods. Normally, you cannot call addValues(int left, int right) inside main() method which is static. Only way around is to have an instance of a class containing addValues() method.
When you do not say static , it means that the method is a 'property' of the object, which is an instantiation of this particular class. When you do not say static, it means that the method is not a property of the object, and thus, can be called without referring to the object.
For example, you could have a Person class, and there is a static method "Print hello" and there is a non-static method "Give me name". Printing hello is not relevant to the particular person, so it is static. "Give me name" is relevant to the particular person, so you need to call this method differently.
Person myMan = new Person();
myMan.giveMeName();
printHello();
You don't need to instanciate the class in order to call static methods.
Program.addValues(1,2)
static methods can't get/set class members
It's because you have your Main function declared as static, so the methods that you call in it need to be too. If you remove static from both you wouldn't get the error.
I found conception of Delegates pretty hard for me. I really do not understand why I can't simply pass one function to another and need to wrap it to Delegate. I read in docs that there is some cases when I do not know it's name and Delegate is only way to call it.
But now I have trouble in understanding conception of callbacks. I tried to find more information, but I can't understand is it's simply call of other function or what is it.
Could you show examples of D callbacks and explain where they can be helpful?
import vibe.d;
shared static this()
{
auto settings = new HTTPServerSettings;
settings.port = 8080;
listenHTTP(settings, &handleRequest);
}
void handleRequest(HTTPServerRequest req,
HTTPServerResponse res)
{
if (req.path == "/")
res.writeBody("Hello, World!", "text/plain");
}
&handleRequest is it callback? How it's work and at what moment it's start?
So within memory a function is just a pile of bytes. Like an array, you can take a pointer to it. This is a function pointer. It has a type of RETT function(ARGST) in D. Where RETT is the return type and ARGST are the argument types. Of course attributes can be applied like any function declaration.
Now delegates are a function pointer with a context pointer. A context pointer can be anything from a single integer (argument), call frame (function inside of another) or lastly a class/struct.
A delegate is very similar to a function pointer type at RETT delegate(ARGST). They are not interchangeable, but you can turn a function pointer into a delegate pointer pretty easily.
The concept of a callback is to say, hey I know you will know about X so when that happens please tell me about X by calling this function/delegate.
To answer your question about &handleRequest, yes it is a callback.
You can pass functions to other functions to later be called.
void test(){}
void receiver(void function() fn){
// call it like a normal function with 'fn()'
// or pass it around, save it, or ignore it
}
// main
receiver(&test); // 'test' will be available as 'fn' in 'receiver'
You need to prepend the function name as argument with & to clarify you want to pass a function pointer. If you don't do that, it will instead call that function due to UFCS (calling without braces). It is not a delegate yet.
The function that receives your callable may do whatever it wants with it. A common example is in your question, a web service callback. First you tell the framework what should be done in case a request is received (by defining actions in a function and making that function available for the framework), and in your example enter a loop with listenHTTP which calls your code when it receives a request. If you want to read more on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(computing)#Event_handler
Delegates are function pointers with context information attached. Say you want to add handlers that act on other elements available in the current context. Like a button that turns an indicator red. Example:
class BuildGui {
Indicator indicator;
Button button;
this(){
... init
button.clickHandler({ // curly braces: implicit delegate in this case
indicator.color = "red"; // notice access of BuildGui member
});
button.clickHandler(&otherClickHandler); // methods of instances can be delegates too
}
void otherClickHandler(){
writeln("other click handler");
}
}
In this imaginary Button class all click handlers are saved to a list and called when it is clicked.
There were several questions in the OP. I am going to try to answer the following two:
Q: Could you show examples of D callbacks and explain where they can be helpful?
A: They are commonly used in all languages that support delegates (C# for an example) as event handlers. - You give a delegate to be called whenever an event is triggered. Languages that do not support delegates use either classes, or callback functions for this purpose. Example how to use callbacks in C++ using the FLTK 2.0 library: http://www.fltk.org/doc-2.0/html/group__example2.html. Delegates are perfect for this as they can directly access the context. When you use callbacks for this purpose you have to pass along all the objects you want to modify in the callback... Check the mentioned FLTK link as an example - there we have to pass a pointer to the fltk::Window object to the window_callback function in order to manipulate it. (The reason why FLTK does this is that back FLTK was born C++ did not have lambdas, otherwise they would use them instead of callbacks)
Example D use: http://dlang.org/phobos/std_signals.html
Q: Why I can't simply pass one function to another and need to wrap it to Delegate?
A: You do not have to wrap to delegates - it depends what you want to accomplish... Sometimes passing callbacks will just work for you. You can't access context in which you may want to call the callback, but delegates can. You can, however pass the context along (and that is what some C/C++ libraries do).
I think what you are asking is explained in the D language reference
Quote 1:
A function pointer can point to a static nested function
Quote 2:
A delegate can be set to a non-static nested function
Take a look at the last example in that section and notice how a delegate can be a method:
struct Foo
{
int a = 7;
int bar() { return a; }
}
int foo(int delegate() dg)
{
return dg() + 1;
}
void test()
{
int x = 27;
int abc() { return x; }
Foo f;
int i;
i = foo(&abc); // i is set to 28
i = foo(&f.bar); // i is set to 8
}
There are already excellent answers. I just want to try to make simple summary.
Simply: delegate allows you to use methods as callbacks.
In C, you do the same by explicitly passing the object (many times named context) as void* and cast it to (hopefully) right type:
void callback(void *context, ...) {
/* Do operations with context, which is usually a struct */
doSomething((struct DATA*)context, ...);
doSomethingElse((struct DATA*)context, ...);
}
In C++, you do the same when wanting to use method as callback. You make a function taking the object pointer explicitly as void*, cast it to (hopefully) right type, and call method:
void callback(void* object, ...) {
((MyObject*)object)->method(...);
}
Delegate makes this all implicitly.
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.