I currently have an event trigger firing a custom trigger action.
The action passes back a EventArgs type of object to the view's view-model.
This is all well and good when I run the code it works perfectly. However, when I come to test this portion of code it all goes a bit rubbish.
As stated We are using an MVVM type pattern so I'm testing the 'Doing' end of the event trigger in my view-model and what I want to do is create a 'mocked' EventArgs object to pass into the execute method of my command under test. However it requires a RoutedEvent as it's ID property as stated above and I don't have access to it's constructor!
Cannot Access Internal Constructor for 'RoutedEvent' here.
Has anyone got any ideas? The code converage in test is more important than the current implimentation so if this is thought to be 'untestable', then I can make changes.
I have answered my own Question I think.
Casting the object passed back from the view at an earlier point means that the object I am passing to the methods under test is more easily created.
This is what I have now for the method under test.
public void DoItemsChanged(IList param)
Before I had
public void DoItemsChanged(object param)
Where the param is a SelectedItemCollection (previously a RoutedEventArgs, but now I use the IvokeCommandAction on the event trigger in the view, passign the SelectedItems). The param is now more easily passed into the method for the test and the code it much more descriptive as well. So it's all good for everyone.
Related
I have two frameworks A and B. I have a public function inside B called getMap() which returns a copy of a map(which is a private variable in B). So I call getMap() in A to get this value. This is fine because it's a copy so whatever I do to the returned value it doesn't affect the actual variable inside B.
Now I did some processing to this value, I need to pass it back to B. Here is the problem: In order to pass it back, it has to be a public function, but I don't want other frameworks or application to call this function because only A should be making changes to this map value.
Is there any way to specify in B that only if A is calling the function then the value should be set, otherwise ignoring anyone else who is using this function? I've heard you can use delegate/protocol to achieve this but I don't understand.
Yes you should be able to achieve this using delegate/protocols. The protocol will still have to be public which means any class could implement the protocol but the simple solution to this would be to just not implement it any other class.
You would create the the protocol in framework B like this:
protocol FrameworkBDelegate {
func sendMapChanges(map: Map)
}
Then call the delegate method when you're ready send it back to the other framework:
func changeMap() {
var map = frameworkA.getMap()
// Do stuff to map...
delegate.sendMapChanges(map: map)
}
I don't want to write a whole tutorial on how implement delegation so here's a good one from Swift by Sundell: here
Let me know if you need any help.
This is not possible out of the box.
If you create a Framework than you have to decide if a method/class needs to be public or not. If a method is public than there isn't an out of the box solution which delivers a bullet proof solution which solves your requirement. In the end the method is public to ALL consumers of Framework B.
So, you will end up implementing some kind of access control mechanisms within Framework B. This means that Framework A needs to authenticate itself in some way (access code etc.).
The delegate pattern will not solve your issue as well, hence it also has to be public, so that Framework A can use it. However, if it's public than all consumers of Framework B can use it.
Is it possible to dynamically create objects or modify them on run-time ?for example,on button click,another button created or change number of lines of a road?
When I write this code for a button Action,in run-time
road123.setBackwardLanesCount(3);
I get error below:
root:
road123: Markup element is already initiated and cannot be modified.Please use constructor without arguments,perform setup and finally call initialize() .function
You'll get that error with any object you attempt to create at runtime using a parameterized constructor. If you create the object with a simple constructor (just "()") and then set all of the parameters individually, you won't run into that issue. Check the Anylogic API for specific information about the object you are using, because some require you to call .initiliaze() on that object after setting all of it's parameters if you created it using a simple constructor. Furthermore, if you want to add the object to the screen at runtime you'll need to add this code to the function that creates it:
#Override
public void onDraw( Panel panel, Graphics2D graphics) {
obj.drawModel(panel, graphics, true);
}
where obj is replaced with the name of the object you created dynamically.
I would like to populate the UI when I load a scene, with the correct data, instead of placeholders.
When I call "LoadSceneAsync", what would be the first object that is called, so I can fill the UI label with the correct data? I know that there is a scene GameObject, but I am not sure if that would fit my needs.
I am looking for some sort of constructor, called when a new scene object is loaded; to plug in my setup function.
You say
Indeed I did use "onlevelwasloaded" but the UI element may not be there, ready to go, when I invoke it, which lead to errors
That would be an incredibly sever bug in Unity! :)
Could it be that you are mixing-up Awake and Start somewhere?
One way to think of it is once you call Start, you know all the Awake have already run.
When I call "LoadSceneAsync", what would be the first object that is called, so I can fill the UI label with the correct data
You are still within the same frame.
Once you see LoadSceneAsync you can be absolutely assured everything is Awake 'd.
Or indeed once you use Start you can be absolutely assured everything is Awake 'd.
1) could it be that in some of your UI elements (or whatever) you are doing something in Start which you should do in Awake?
2) if (for some reason) you want to "wait until the next frame", perhaps just during development - then do that, wait a frame. You'll see a flicker, but if that's what you want to do (for some reason) do that.
3) note that if you mean you want to go to the net to get something, well of course you have to wait frames (use Update/coroutine) until the information comes back from the net, obviously. (How else could it be?)
Note that in practice, one should be using UnityEngine.Events.UnityEvent everywhere.
Maybe this is what you are looking for http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/MonoBehaviour.OnLevelWasLoaded.html
Relying on Unity internal functioning is not always the way to go. Particularly when dealing with RESTApi (which is somehow what you are dealing with here).
You cannot assume one object will be ready before another except if you control it.
Add a Controller script that uses Awake. In the Awake, call all the methods you are needing and use some callback to generate secondary code when primary is ready.
public class MyController: MonoBehaviour{
private ServerRequestController serverCtrl = null;
private UIController uiCtrl = null;
private void Awake(){
serverCtrl = this.gameObject.AddComponent<ServerRequestController>();
uiCtrl =this.gameObject.AddComponent<UIController>();
serverCtrl.GetData(uiCtrl.SetUI);
}
}
public class UIController:MonoBehaviour{
public void SetUI(Data data)
{
SetTopImage(data.topImage);
SetBottomImage(data.bottomImage);
// And so on
}
}
public class ServerRequestController:MonoBehaviour{
public void GetData(Action onCompletion){
// This may be a coroutine if you fetch from server
Data data = GetDataFromSomewhere();
// At this point, your data is ready
onCompletion(data);
}
}
Thanks to this, you are now able to know exactly when a piece of code is ready.
I'm using GWTP, adding a Contract layer to abstract the knowledge between Presenter and View, and I'm pretty satisfied of the result with GWTP.
I'm testing my presenters with Mockito.
But as time passed, I found it was hard to maintain a clean presenter with its tests.
There are some refactoring stuff I did to improve that, but I was still not satisfied.
I found the following to be the heart of the matter :
My presenters need often asynchronous call, or generally call to objects method with a callback to continue my presenter flow (they are usually nested).
For example :
this.populationManager.populate(new PopulationCallback()
{
public void onPopulate()
{
doSomeStufWithTheView(populationManager.get());
}
});
In my tests, I ended to verify the population() call of the mocked PopulationManager object. Then to create another test on the doSomeStufWithTheView() method.
But I discovered rather quickly that it was bad design : any change or refactoring ended to broke a lot of my tests, and forced me to create from start others, even though the presenter functionality did not change !
Plus I didn't test if the callback was effectively what I wanted.
So I tried to use mockito doAnswer method to do not break my presenter testing flow :
doAnswer(new Answer(){
public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable
{
Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
((PopulationCallback)args[0]).onPopulate();
return null;
}
}).when(this.populationManager).populate(any(PopulationCallback.class));
I factored the code for it to be less verbose (and internally less dependant to the arg position) :
doAnswer(new PopulationCallbackAnswer())
.when(this.populationManager).populate(any(PopulationCallback.class));
So while mocking the populationManager, I could still test the flow of my presenter, basically like that :
#Test
public void testSomeStuffAppends()
{
// Given
doAnswer(new PopulationCallbackAnswer())
.when(this.populationManager).populate(any(PopulationCallback.class));
// When
this.myPresenter.onReset();
// Then
verify(populationManager).populate(any(PopulationCallback.class)); // That was before
verify(this.myView).displaySomething(); // Now I can do that.
}
I am wondering if it is a good use of the doAnswer method, or if it is a code smell, and a better design can be used ?
Usually, my presenters tend to just use others object (like some Mediator Pattern) and interact with the view. I have some presenter with several hundred (~400) lines of code.
Again, is it a proof of bad design, or is it normal for a presenter to be verbose (because its using others objects) ?
Does anyone heard of some project which uses GWTP and tests its presenter cleanly ?
I hope I explained in a comprehensive way.
Thank you in advance.
PS : I'm pretty new to Stack Overflow, plus my English is still lacking, if my question needs something to be improved, please tell me.
You could use ArgumentCaptor:
Check out this blog post fore more details.
If I understood correctly you are asking about design/architecture.
This is shouldn't be counted as answer, it's just my thoughts.
If I have followed code:
public void loadEmoticonPacks() {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
pack = loadFromServer();
savePackForUsageAfter();
}
});
}
I usually don't count on executor and just check that methods does concrete job by loading and saving. So the executor here is just instrument to prevent long operations in the UI thread.
If I have something like:
accountManager.setListener(this);
....
public void onAccountEvent(AccountEvent event) {
....
}
I will check first that we subscribed for events (and unsubscribed on some destroying) as well I would check that onAccountEvent does expected scenarios.
UPD1. Probably, in example 1, better would be extract method loadFromServerAndSave and check that it's not executed on UI thread as well check that it does everything as expected.
UPD2. It's better to use framework like Guava Bus for events processing.
We are using this doAnswer pattern in our presenter tests as well and usually it works just fine. One caveat though: If you test it like this you are effectively removing the asynchronous nature of the call, that is the callback is executed immediately after the server call is initiated.
This can lead to undiscovered race conditions. To check for those, you could make this a two-step process: when calling the server,the answer method only saves the callback. Then, when it is appropriate in your test, you call sometinh like flush() or onSuccess() on your answer (I would suggest making a utility class for this that can be reused in other circumstances), so that you can control when the callback for the result is really called.
Currently I have big difficulties extending Zend_Form.
I have the basic class called Forms_LpaManageEmailForm.
It is used separately and works fine.
Next I've created a new class form
called Default_Form_CartReport witch extends Forms_LpaManageEmailForm.
So the task is to render Default_Form_CartReport and slitely modificate it.
In other words I need all functionality of
Forms_LpaManageEmailForm class but with overriden _addMultiOptionsForMultiSelect() function
(what is done) and changed button label (doesn't solved).
In basic class I have hidden element named id which value is filled with
$this->_entry_id['entry_id']. When I use basic form separately - its woks fine. But
when I run extended form(Forms_LpaManageEmailForm) I see that hidden id element's value is empty. In basic class in construct section I run
Zend debugger(with this line Zend_Debug::dump($this->_entry_id['entry_id'])) to see if the
value is passed. And it's passed :) When I repeat this in init() section it shows NULL...
As I barely understand - the problem lays in init() functions, in the way it is called.
I think something is wrong with Default_Form_CartReport class skeleton.
I've uploaded code to: PASTEBIN
Really need help in this question.
Thank you!
I believe your issues are causing my the fact that Forms_LpaManageEmailForm:: __construct is calling $this->init() directly. if you open the Zend_Form, you will notice that the __construct is also calling the $this->init() function. This cause your init() function to executed twice.
Try to load all your logic & elements solely in the __construct function, and don't use the init() function. also, the __construct function in each form class should always call the parent::__construct before any additional logic.