I'm working on Magento templates, but this issue would apply to any template loading system.
As these templates are loaded by the template engine there's no way for the IDE (in this case Aptana) to know what object type $this is.
Potentially it could more than one object as a single template could be loaded by multiple objects, but ignoring this, what would the correct phpdoc syntax be to specify a specific class for the $this object?
You can define it like this:
/* #var $this type */
where type is a class name
To be clear, using $this should only ever indicate an object of the current class, right?
PhpDocumentor doesn't currently (v1.4.3) recognize $this as a specific keyword that should equate to a datatype of the class itself.
Only datatypes known by PHP and classes already parsed by PhpDocumentor are the proper datatype values to use with the #return tag. There is a feature request in to have some option available in PhpDocumtentor to aid in documenting fluent methods that always "return $this". [1]
In the case of the #var tag, I don't see how it would be feasible for a class variable to contain its own class instance. As such, I can't follow what "#var $this" should be saying.
If, however, your intention with $this is not for fluent methods that "return $this", and was simply to be some shortcut to PhpDocumentor and/or your IDE to magically guess what datatypes you might mean by using $this, I'd have to guess there's no way to do it. The closest suggestion I could make would be to use the name of a parent class that is a common parent to all the various child classes that this particular var/return might be at runtime, and then use the description part of the tag to have inline {#link} tags that list out the possible child classes that are possible.
Example: I have a Parent abstract class with Child1, Child2, and Child3 children that each could occur in my runtime Foo class.
So, Foo::_var could be any of those child class types at runtime, but how would I document this?
/**
* #var Parent this could be any child of {#link Parent}, {#link Child1}, {#link Child2}, or {#link Child3}...
*/
protected $_var;
Getting back to the "return $this" issue, I'd document things in a similar way:
/**
* a fluent method (i.e. it returns this class's instance object)
* #return Parent this could be any child of {#link Parent}, {#link Child1}, {#link Child2}, or {#link Child3}...
*/
public function foo() {
return $this;
}
Documenting this way at least allows your class doc to have links to the particular classes. What it fails to do is highlight the fluent 'ness. However, if your IDE is capable of recognizing the class names, then perhaps it will be able to do the necessary logical linking to those other classes. I think Eclipse is able to do this at least with popup help, if you hover over the class name in the tag's description. I do not think Eclipse can use this to then make the various child classes' methods available in code completion. It would know about the Parent methods for code completion, because the datatype I explicitly list is Parent, but that's as far as the IDE can go.
[1] -- http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16223
I have found that defining a type with #var for $this does not work - presumably because $this is special and is treated as such by Aptana. I have a similar need to the poster I think - it is in template files (in my case simply located and included by functions within the data class) that I wish to set a type for $this. As #ashnazg says, setting a type for $this within a class definition is not needed, because the type of $this is always the type of the class (up to inheritance).
There is, however, a workaround for template files. At the top of the template file simply put something like
/**
* #var My_Data_Model_Type
*/
$dataModel = &$this;
Then simply use $dataModel (or whatever you choose to call it - maybe something shorter) instead of $this in the template
Related
I am following this documentation: https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/book-extbasefluid/10.4/en-us/5-Domain/2-implementing-the-domain-model.html
The 'Organization' model defines setters and a method "addContact"
/**
* Adds a contact to the organization
*
* #param Person The contact to be added
* #return void
*/
public function addContact(Person $contact)
{
$this->contacts->attach($contact);
}
I created an extbase model myself, which requires records from an objectstorage. But i figured it out, that I could render records from an objectstorage in fluid, without defining "add{property}" and "set{property} methods. What are the purpose of these methods? When and where are they called?
Setter methods (and adder for ObjectStorages) are not needed by the framework. I'd recommend not adding them if you do not have the use case of setting a value programmatically.
Generally speaking you should not add code that you dont need.
Extbase itself will use reflection to gather and set properties that match database columns.
Setters are for fields that have a representation in the database.
You can add more properties to the models which are i.e. calculated or get the values somewhere else from that don't have setter methods.
Those properties you can access in fluid templates as long as they have also a declaration in the model.
Concerning the method addContact that's one property with probably 4 methods:
getContact (is singular but can have several)
setContact (is singular but can have several)
addContact (adds one contact to the $contact)
removeContact (removes one contact from the $contact)
So this property is still connected / related to the database, just that it's a foreign table as it's foreign model too.
$contact in your case is likely of type \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage which is like an array iterable but just as object.
My question is very simple. How can you create your own tooltip information for your own created methods and classes, the way all methods and classes of the standard library of java have, when you are writing code and choosing methods and subclasses?!
For example, let's say I have a Class A, in which I have a Method B. Now I define a new instance of Class A in another Class C by writing "A my_class = new A()". Now when I write "my_class.B" I want the Eclipse to show me the information about the Method B in a tooltip, so I know what are the parameters I have to pass to that method B.
Here is a picture example:
http://www.subshell.com/en/subshell/blog/eclipse-javadoc-tooltips100~v-full_small.jpg
I searched a while, but I didn't find any solutions for that. So maybe you know how to do that!
In eclipse, once you add the javadoc comment to your method, it will show up wherever you refer to that method. The Javadoc comment takes the form
/**
* This is my method description
* #param x the total number of mangoes allowed
* #return int the number of litres of juice possible
*/
Javadoc comments are placed just before the artifact that it describes. So a method comment will go on the line before the method, a class comment goes on the line before the class statement and so on.
I have an autobean with a property that is only needed for the UI. I believe that you can null out values and the AutoBeanCodex will not serialized that property, but that equates to an extra step which is needed at serialization.
I was hoping for some annotation similar to the Editor #Ignore annotation. For example:
public interface Foo {
...
#Ignore
String getUiOnlyProperty();
}
So, other than nulling out the value at serialization time, is there any other way to keep an autobean property from being serialized?
Autobeans are meant to be a Java skin on a JSON/XML/whatever format - they aren't really designed to hold other pieces of data. That said, several thoughts that either nearly answer your question with out-of-the-box tools, or might inspire some other ideas on how to solve your problem.
You should be able to build read-only properties by omitting the setter. This isn't quite what you are asking for, but still might be handy.
Along those lines, the JavaDoc for the #PropertyName annotation seems to allude to this possible feature:
/**
* An annotation that allows inferred property names to be overridden.
* <p>
* This annotation is asymmetric, applying it to a getter will not affect the
* setter. The asymmetry allows existing users of an interface to read old
* {#link AutoBeanCodex} messages, but write new ones.
*/
Reading old messages but writing new ones seems like it might be closer to what you are after, and still allowing you to work with the thing-that-looks-like-a-bean.
The real answer though seems to be the AutoBean.setTag and getTag methods:
/**
* A tag is an arbitrary piece of external metadata to be associated with the
* wrapped value.
*
* #param tagName the tag name
* #param value the wrapped value
* #see #getTag(String)
*/
void setTag(String tagName, Object value);
...
/**
* Retrieve a tag value that was previously provided to
* {#link #setTag(String, Object)}.
*
* #param tagName the tag name
* #return the tag value
* #see #setTag(String, Object)
*/
<Q> Q getTag(String tagName);
As can be seen from the implementation of these methods in AbstractAutoBean, these store their data in a totally separate object from what is sent over the wire. The downside is that you'll need to get the underlying AutoBean object (see com.google.web.bindery.autobean.shared.AutoBeanUtils.getAutoBean(U) for one way to do this) in order to invoke these methods.
child class/interface decoded as a parent interface does not explode on decoding allowing the goods to be passed together before the marshalling steps. my immediate test of the actual code below is performing as expected.
public interface ReplicateOptions {
/**
* Create target database if it does not exist. Only for server replications.
*/
Boolean getCreateTarget();
void setCreateTarget(Boolean create_target);
//baggage to pass along
interface ReplicateCall<T> extends ReplicateOptions {
/**
* If true starts subscribing to future changes in the source database and continue replicating them.
*/
AsyncCallback<T> getContinuous();
void setContinuous(AsyncCallback<T> continuous);
}
}
Is there a way without typing /** that I can generate comment template for the entire class? I have 50 methods in the class and it gets tedious to type /** for each and every method and specifying the params.
JAutodoc can do this: http://jautodoc.sourceforge.net/
I know it's possible to get IDE autocompletion from the *Table classes in Doctrine by doing things like this:
SomethingTable::getInstance()-><autocomplete>;
But the most important part is missing. I want autocomplete on the model classes themselves, not just the Table classes. It appears that Doctrine is not properly declaring the PHPdoc #return object types in the find and other standard model methods.
For example what I want to be able to do is this:
$something = SomethingTable::getInstance()->find($id);
$something-><autocomplete>
and have that pop up the methods and properties of the Something class.
I should mention too that I don't specifically care about using the SomethingTable::getInstance() syntax at all. ANY decent syntax that's standard Symfony is acceptable. Most of the time I'm fetching objects (or Doctrine_Collections) via custom queries like this:
$somethings = Doctrine_Query::create()
->from('Something s')
->leftJoin('s.SomethingElse s2')
->where(...);
By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm asking if there's any automatic solution to this with ANY of the various Doctrine find, fetch or query syntaxes. I'm NOT asking how to manually edit all the PHPdoc headers to cause the behavior I want.
I'm using NetBeans 6.9.1 and Symfony 1.4.12 with Doctrine, but not everyone working on the same code uses NetBeans.
The problem is that autogenerated *Table classes have the wrong phpdoc #return in the getInstance() method:
/**
* Returns an instance of this class.
*
* #return object MyModelTable
*/
public static function getInstance()
{
return Doctrine_Core::getTable('MyModel');
}
You just need to manually fix the #return line deleting the word "object":
* #return MyModelTable
And magically IDE autocompletion just works, giving you all the instance and static methods:
MyModelable::getInstance()->... //(you'll have autocompletion here)
I know, its a pain to have to manually fix this but at least it only have to be done once for each model *Table file.
In netbeans its quite easy:
$foo = ModelNameTable::getInstance()->find(1); /* #var $foo ModelName */
/* #var $foo ModelName */ tells netbeans to handle the variable $foo as a ModelName class.
just fix the generated model files by adding
/**
* #return ModelNameTable
*/
in the comment of the getInstance() method. This will provide autocomplete for the model file.
Regarding the find method, you can edit the comment of the class like this :
/**
* #method ModelName find()
*/
I think it might be possible for you to do this automatically by creating you own skeleton files.
Or not : Symfony Doctrine skeleton files
You could use sed to achieve this, or perhaps build your own task using the reflection api.