what approach for adding custom methods to Core Data managed objects in separate files? In particular the requirements would be I guess:
don't want to touch the XCode4 generated classes (i.e. so can regenerator them anytime and not have to redo changes within them)
can effectively add methods to the generated classes (assumption is the class names don't change)
Note - I'm aware of mogenerator but I'm not happy with it entirely at the moment noting https://github.com/rentzsch/mogenerator/issues/55
Would the simple and best answer be just Objective-C: Categories?
Fixing mogenerator would be the best answer :-).
mogenerator uses subclasses, so you could always do that, but categories would work as well.
I just tried... What do you think about a simple #include "included_dataStuff" and putting all your extra code into the "included_dataStuff" file.
There are two possibilities:
create a new ClassFile, delete the include "header.h", (delete the header.h), put the extra code there. It compiles but brings the two warnings: (which are understandable)
[WARN]warning: no rule to process file '$(PROJECT_DIR)/Classes/../included_dataStuff' of type text for architecture armv6
[WARN]warning: no rule to process file '$(PROJECT_DIR)/Classes/../included_dataStuff' of type text for architecture armv7
create a new "empty" file and put the extra code there. This does not produce any warnings.
The difference between 1 and 2 is that while the code formatting remains in the first alternatve (having to accept the 2 warnings) in the second all the code format is lost and its treated like normal text (but there is no warning)
I guess I would prefer the first. Of course, the only modification to the generated code file would be the #include statement.
What do you think about that?
Related
I'm doing some competitions on a website called topcoder.com where the objective is to solve algorithmic problems. I'm using Eclipse for this purpose, and I code in Java, it would be help me to have some predefined templates or macros that I can use for common coding tasks. For example I would like to write methods to be able to find the max value in and int[] array, or the longest sequence in an int[] array, and so on (there should be quite many of these). Note I can't write these methods as libraries because as part of the competition I need to submit everything in one file.
Therefore ideally, I would like to have some shortcut available to generate code both as a method and as a calling statement at once. Any ideas if this is possible?
Sure you can - I think that's a nifty way to auto-insert boilerplate or helper code. To the point of commenters, you probably want to group the code as a helper class, but the general idea sounds good to me:
You can see it listed in your available templates:
Then as you code your solution, you can Control+Space, type the first few characters of the name you gave your template, and you can preview it:
And then you can insert it. Be sure if you use a class structure to position it as an inner class:
Lastly - if you want to have a template inserts a call to method from a template, I think you would just use two templates. One like shown above (to print the helper code) and another that might look like this, which calls a util method and drops the cursor after it (or between the parentheses if you'd like, etc):
MyUtils.myUtilMethod1();${cursor}
Let's say i have a xml file with a tag named which contains the number of fields i want to show in my tableView and in another xml file i have the information to be displayed in that tableView.
The question is : Should i create 2 different file in my project (xmlparse1.h and .m + xmlparse2.h and .m) or should i just put all my code in 1 (xmlparse.h + .m) and differenciate which file i am parsing at the moment with a bool or something like that in the code?
I am developing an iphone app on Xcode 4.3 mac os x 10.7.4 if this might change
EDIT: 1st file :
<MenuPrin>
<humidite>82,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0</humidite>
<tempmoy>
189,124,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700
</tempmoy>
</MenuPrin>
2nd File :
<Instal>
<nbrField>2</nbrField>
</Instal>
So it looks like this. So, since nbrField is 2 I would take the 2 first value from tempMoy and humidite and show them in a tableView.
END OF EDIT
If how you're parsing is similar in both instances, to add two sets of files that do effectively the same thing would be extremely inefficient and considered bad practice. It makes a lot more sense to create a parser that can handle the two different files than to write two parsers that can only handle a specific file each.
To more specifically answer your question, I would determine which file you are parsing and behave accordingly, whether you do this with a bool or something else is up to you.
EDIT: Here is the idea that just popped into my head, so if for whatever reason this wont work for you(Like I said its been a while), or someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. You could still have a set of files(.h and .m) that contain the definition of your parser. Your parser could contain within it a two variables of type Object1 and Object2 which are built in such a way that they resemble the data structure that you need to store what you parse once for your first type of file, and a different definition for your second type of file. This way when parsing once you determine which file it is you are reading, it just changes which of these two objects you write into. There are also plenty of variations for how you could set this up, and I can also think of a few cases for what you might be trying to do where this might not work, but there is the idea regardless.
If you think that the two sets of files approach is better for the application you are trying to write and makes more sense to you, given what has been discussed in the comments, it isn't necessarily a bad idea.
In case if u want to create two table view in one view u need to create a single .h & .m file...If u want to create individual table view u need to create two .h & .m...
Try TBXML parser...that is the easiest way and less memory usage for xmlparsing...
I have about a half dozen tables coming from a legacy web server. These tables all have a "type" column. I need to keep these column names in sync at the app level.
Using mogenerator, the base class it creates dutifully generates a setPrimitiveType attribute. Well Apple doesn't like this method and rejected our app.
Is it possible to change mogenerator to not create certain methods of the model's attributes?
Yes, it is possible to fine-tune what mogenerator creates. This is done by updating the entries in the templates for the machine files. For example, the following lines can be commented out from the machine.h template file.
- (void)setPrimitive<$Attribute.name.initialCapitalString$>:(<$Attribute.objectAttributeType$>)value;
- (void)setPrimitive<$Attribute.name.initialCapitalString$>Value:(<$Attribute.scalarAttributeType$>)value_;
The former is the regular accessor. The latter is the scalar accessor and it could even be renamed if desired.
However, do notice that the Core Data framework and not mogenerator are generating the basic accessors as pointed out by the Apple Docs Core Data Programming Guide:
For example, given an entity with an attribute firstName, Core Data automatically generates firstName, setFirstName:, primitiveFirstName, and setPrimitiveFirstName:. Core Data does this even for entities represented by NSManagedObject. To suppress compiler warnings when you invoke these methods, you should use the Objective-C 2.0 declared properties feature, as described in “Declaration.”
I had the same problem with 'type' keyword.
My solution was manually creating and implementing methods like
- (NSNumber *)primitiveType;
- (void)setPrimitiveType:(NSNumber *)value_;
Do you use table-of-contents for listing all the functions (and maybe variables) of a class in the beginning of big source code file? I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.. but some complex tasks require a lot of code. I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files? Or is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
EDIT:
To better illustrate how I use table-of-contents this is an example from my hobby project. It's actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function.. but you can probably get the idea anyway..
/*
CONTENTS
Order_mouse_from_to_points
Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
Lines_not_intersecting
Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
Update_intersection_range_indices
Rough_method
Normal_method
First_selected_item
Last_selected_item
Other_selected_item
*/
void SelectionManager::FindSelection()
{
// Order_mouse_from_to_points
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
...
// Lines_not_intersecting
...
// Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
...
// Update_intersection_range_indices
for(...)
{
// Rough_method
....
// Normal_method
if(...)
{
// First_selected_item
...
// Last_selected_item
...
// Other_selected_item
...
}
}
}
Notice that index-items don't have spaces. Because of this I can click on one them and press F4 to jump to the item-usage, and F2 to jump back (simple visual studio find-next/prevous-shortcuts).
EDIT:
Another alternative solution to this indexing is using collapsed c# regions. You can configure visual studio to show only region names and hide all the code. Of course keyboard support for that source code navigation is pretty cumbersome...
I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.
Correct.
but some complex tasks require a lot of code
Incorrect. While a "lot" of code be required, long runs of code (over 25 lines) are a really bad idea.
actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function
Worse. A function that needs a table of contents must be decomposed into smaller functions.
I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files?
It is absolutely mandatory that you split things into smaller files. The folks that maintain, adapt and reuse your code need all the help they can get.
is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
No.
If you have to resort to this kind of trick, it's too big.
Also, many languages have tools to generate API docs from the code. Java, Python, C, C++ have documentation tools. Even with Javadoc, epydoc or Doxygen you still have to design things so that they are broken into intellectually manageable pieces.
Make things simpler.
Use a tool to create an index.
If you create a big index you'll have to maintain it as you change your code. Most modern IDEs create list of class members anyway. it seems like a waste of time to create such index.
I would never ever do this sort of busy-work in my code. The most I would do manually is insert a few lines at the top of the file/class explaining what this module did and how it is intended to be used.
If a list of methods and their interfaces would be useful, I generate them automatically, through a tool such as Doxygen.
I've done things like this. Not whole tables of contents, but a similar principle -- just ad-hoc links between comments and the exact piece of code in question. Also to link pieces of code that make the same simplifying assumptions that I suspect may need fixing up later.
You can use Visual Studio's task list to get a listing of certain types of comment. The format of the comments can be configured in Tools|Options, Environment\Task List. This isn't something I ended up using myself but it looks like it might help with navigating the code if you use this system a lot.
If you can split your method like that, you should probably write more methods. After this is done, you can use an IDE to give you the static call stack from the initial method.
EDIT: You can use Eclipse's 'Show Call Hierarchy' feature while programming.
I'm trying to come up with a way to make it easy to switch out our "mock" data services and our live ones. Basically, we'll have live servers with real web services, but for whatever reason, a developer may want to load data from static files (file urls).
I figured I would solve this problem by creating categories that override the methods that fetch the data, thus leaving original code untouched (it has no concept of the "mock" data). I don't want to litter my code with #ifdef.
I can put an #ifdef at the very beginning of each file that has categories in it, and I can set a custom flag in the configuration settings, but I'd rather just have a way to include or exclude the files depending on the configuration. Is that possible? How do you solve this problem?
See http://lists.apple.com/archives/xcode-users/2009/Jun/msg00153.html
The trick is to define EXCLUDED_SOURCE_FILE_NAMES in the configuration you want to exclude the files from, and set the value of that custom build setting to a list of the file names (or a pattern that matches those, and only those, file names).
I would recommend creating two targets one of which has the mock categories included and another one which does not.
When you want to test, just build the target containing the mock categories. Everything else can remain identical.
If you would like to add a file but do not wont to compile it. Go to (for all your targets) project>build phases>compile source and take out the file that you do not want to compile.