I have a modular Sinatra app without a DB and in order to test memcache, I have some test files that need to be created and deleted on the file system. I would like to generate these files in an AfterConfiguration hook using some helper methods (which are in a module shared with rspec, which also needs to create/delete these files for testing). I only want to create them once at the start of Cucumber.
I do not seem to be able to access the helpers from within AfterConfiguration, which lives in "support/hooks.rb." The helpers are accessible from Cucumber's steps, so I know they have been loaded properly.
This previous post seems to have an answer: Want to load seed data before running cucumber
The second example in this answer seems to say my modules should be accessible to my AfterConfiguration block, but I get "undefined method `foo' for nil:NilClass" when attempting to call helper method "foo".
I can pull everything out into a rakefile and run it that way, but I'd like to know what I'm missing here.
After digging around in the code, it appears that AfterConfiguration not only runs before any features are loaded, but before World is instantiated. Running self.class inside of the AfterConfig block returns NilClass. Running self.class inside of any other hook, such as a Before, will return MyWorldName. In retrospect, this makes sense as every feature is run in a separate instance of World.
This is why helpers defined as instance methods (ie def method_name) are unknown. Changing my methods to module methods (ie def ModuleName.method_name) allows them to function, since they really are module methods anyway.
Related
I have a Swift application that uses a module, and I need to call a global function that is in the application from the module, is this possible?
To perhaps explain a little better, this is a test app structure:
CallbackTestApp contains a function foo(), I would like to call it from Module1 or File, will swift allow this?
edit #1
More details have been requested on what is the background of my issue, hopefully, this will not turn out to be an XY situation.
There's a tool developed by my company that process the application source* code and in some places add function call (ignore the why etc, have to be generic here.). Those function calls are exactly to foo() which then does some magic (btw, no return value and no arguments are allowed), if the application does not use modules or if modules are excluded from the processing then all is fine (Linker does not complain that the function is not defined), if there are modules then nothing works since I did not found a way to inject foo() (yet).
*Not exactly the source code, actually the bitcode is processed, the tool get the source, use llvm toolchain to generate bitcode, do some more magic and then add the call to foo() by generating it's mangled name and adding a swiftcall
Not actually sure those additional details will help.
I'm using a Java lib within my Scala project. I want to call a specific static method adjustLib of that lib as early as possible and for every possible starting point of an execution (e.g. before runing the "main" App and before executing tests) to achieve the desired behaviour.
One solution would be to place this statement at the very top of each class, that might be executed (applies for all classes extending App and for all tests).
However, if someone implements a new, executable class but forgets adjustLib, things might get weird.
Is there any chance to define an object or something similar, that executes this adjustLib statement in a "static" manner every time anything in the given project is executed?
In SugarCRM, you can create your custom modules (e.g. MyModule) and they are kept in /modules just like stock objects, with any default metadata, views, language files, etc. For a custom module MyModule, you might have something like:
/modules/MyModule/MyModule.class.php
/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php
/modules/MyModule/language/
/modules/MyModule/metadata
And so on, so that everything is nicely defined and all the modules are kept together. The module becomes registered with the system by a file such as /custom/Extension/application/Include/MyModule.php with contents something like:
<?php
$beanList['MyModule'] = 'MyModule';
$beanFiles['MyModule'] = 'modules/MyModule/MyModule.php';
$moduleList[] = 'MyModule';
Obviously, the $beanFiles array references where we can find the base module's class, usually an extension of the SugarBean object. Recently I was advised that we can adjust that file's location for the sake of customization, and it makes sense to a degree. Setting it like $beanFiles['MyModule'] = 'custom/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php'; would allow us to access the base class via Module Loader even if the security scan tool prevents core file changes, and this would also allow us to not exactly extend, but replace stock modules like Accounts or Calls, without modifying core files and having system upgrades to wipe out the changes.
So here's my question: what is the best practice here? I've been working with SugarCRM pretty intensely for several years and this is the first time I've ever been tempted to modify the $beanFiles array. My concern is that I'm deviating from best practice here, and also that somehow both files modules/MyModule/MyModule.php and custom/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php could be loaded which would cause a class name conflict in PHP (i.e. because both classes are named MyModule...). Obviously, any references to the class would need to be updated (e.g. an entryPoint that works with this module), but am I missing any potential ramifications?
Technically it should be fine, but I can see how it could be possible that both the core version and your version could conflict if both are referenced. It all depends on the scenario, but I prefer to extend the core bean and find somewhere in the stack where I can have my custom version used in place of the core bean. I wrote up an example a couple of years ago here: https://www.sugaroutfitters.com/blog/safely-customizing-a-core-bean-in-sugarcrm
For most use-cases, there's a way to hijack Sugar to use your bean at a given point.
If you can't get around it you can always grep to see where the core module is explicitly being included to ensure that there won't be conflict down the road.
I'm trying to find out how PlayPlugin objects are used within Play Framework (1.2.5).
Are same PlayPlugin instances shared between different Play threads?
With some source lookup I suppose yes but since Play has some meta-programming in many places and I'm not so familiar with all this, I'm not 100% sure.
Call stack for PlayPlugin.beforeInvocation:
PlayPlugin.beforeInvocation
PluginCollection.beforeInvocation
list of enabled plugins is a field within PluginCollection)
Invocation.before
uses static field Play.PluginCollection
Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(Play.classloader) is one thing that could possibly affect Play.PluginCollection, for example.
Single instance for all threads -behaviour would also be confirmed by the article Play Framework: Introduction to Writing Modules:
beforeActionInvocation(): This code is executed before controller
invocation. Useful for validation, where it is used by Play as well.
You could also possibly put additional objects into the render
arguments here. Several plugins also set up some variables inside
thread locals to make sure they are thread safe.
So, I suppose the answer is that yes, the instances are shared, but would like to confirm that.
You are right. Each instance of PlayPlugin(subclass of course) is shared throughout the entire JVM. You get that instance via Play.plugin(class<T> clazz) method call.
Just installed rails 3.1 rc1 and am trying to grok the best way to manage javascript with the new asset pipeline
By default all coffeescript is compiled into a single application.js file, this is a good thing.
Each seperate coffee script file is appended to the js file and wrapped in an anonymous function which is executed via the call method
A common scenario would be to use some jquery to turn various forms into ajax forms, update UI, etc...
Many of these scripts will be specific to a controller or action, I am trying to grok the 'conventional' way to handle this,
since everything is wrapped in an anonymous function how do I only execute just
the code for a particular controller / action, by default all of the anonymous functions are being executed
I did play around with some hacks where I load the controller and action name into js variables and then in
coffeescript check those to conditionally run code, I don't like that very much
my initial thought was that each coffee file would contain a js namespace/object and I would call the specific ones from the view,
going to spike this using the default_bare = true configuration
see How can I use option "--bare" in Rails 3.1 for CoffeeScript?
EDIT
Looking around some more: this looks like it might be the correct approach - "Can't find variable" error with Rails 3.1 and Coffeescript
There are two common approaches:
Make behavior conditional on the presence of a particular element. For instance, code to run a signup sheet should be prefaced with something like
if $('#signup').length > 0
Make behavior conditional on a class on the body element. You can set the body class using ERB. This is often desirable for stylesheets as well. The code would be something like
if $('body').hasClass 'user'
gistyle is a simple gem that helps you running action-specific javascript codes.
By following its setup, you set some data attributes in your body element, representing the current controller and action names. Then it will only call that action when the corresponding view is loaded.