Am I able to use public orb commands inside of jobs of a private orb? I can't figure out how to do it.
Thanks
I haven't tested it but my assumption is: "yes, you can" :D
As for any orb leveraging another orb's commands/jobs/executors, you'll need to add a reference to the public orb you want to use in the src/#orb.yml file with the orbs stanza, as you would in a .circleci/config.yml.
See this template.
Related
We figured out how to create a custom combine function (after lots of guesswork and beam sdk 2.0 code reading) in beam sdk 2.0, as the dataflow sdk 1.x syntax did not work in sdk 2.0.
However, we can't figure out how to create a custom combine PER KEY function in beam sdk 2.0. Any help or pointers (or better yet an actual example) would be greatly appreciated. (We scoured the internet for documentation or examples and found none; we also attempted to look at the code within beam sdk 2.0's Combine class, but couldn't figure it out, especially since the PerKey class now has a private constructor, so we can't extend it any longer.)
In case it helps, here's how we correctly created a custom combiner (without) keys in beam sdk 2.0, but we can't figure out how to create one with a key:
public class CombineTemplateIntervalsIntoBlocks
extends Combine.AccumulatingCombineFn<ImmutableMySetOfIntervals, TemplateIntervalAccum, ArrayList<ImmutableMySetOfIntervals>>{
public CombineTemplateIntervalsIntoBlocks() {
}
#Override
public TemplateIntervalAccum createAccumulator() {
return new TemplateIntervalAccum()
}
and then
public class TemplateIntervalAccum
implements Combine.AccumulatingCombineFn.Accumulator<ImmutableMySetOfIntervals, TemplateIntervalAccum, ArrayList<ImmutableMySetOfIntervals>>, Serializable {
...
You don't need to create your CombineFn differently to use a Combine.PerKey.
You can extend either AccumulatingCombineFn (which puts the merging logic in the accumulator) or extend CombineFn (which puts the merging logic in the CombineFn). There are also other options such as BinaryCombineFn and IterableCombineFn.
Say that you have a CombineFn<InputT, AccumT, OutputT> called combineFn:
You can use Combine.globally(combineFn) to create a PTransform that takes a PCollection<InputT> and combines all the elements.
Or, you can use Combine.perKey(combineFn) to create a PTransform that takes a PCollection<KV<K, InputT>> and combines all the values associated with a each key and combines them. This corresponds to the Combine.PerKey I believe you are referring to.
Say I defined a private function in a dart file hello.dart:
_hello() {
return "world";
}
I want to test it in another file mytest.dart:
library mytest;
import 'dart:unittest/unittest.dart';
main() {
test('test private functions', () {
expect(_hello(), equals("world"));
}
}
But unfortunately, the test code can't be compiled. But I do need to test that private _hello function. Is there any solution?
While I agree that private methods/classes shouldn't be part of your tests, the meta package does provide an #visibleForTesting attribute, and the analyzer will give you a warning if you attempt to use the member outside of its original library or a test. You can use it like this:
import 'package:meta/meta.dart';
#visibleForTesting
String hello() {
return "world";
}
Your tests will now be able to use it without error or warning, but if someone else tries to use it they'll get a warning.
Again, as to the wisdom of doing this is another question - usually if it's something worth testing, it's something that's worth being public (or it'll get tested through your public interfaces and that's what really matters anyway). At the same time, you might just want to have rigorous tests or test driven principles even for your private methods/classes so - Dart lets you this way.
Edit to add: If you're developing a library and your file with #visibleForTesting will be exported, you are essentially adding public API. Someone can consume that with the analyzer turned off (or just ignore the warning), and if you remove it later you may break them.
Several people believe we shouldn't test private directly: it should be tested through the public interface.
An advantage of following this guidance, is that your test won't depend on your implementation. Said differently: if you want to change your private without changing what you expose to the world, then you won't have to touch your tests.
According to this school of though, if your private is important enough to justify a unit test, then it might make sense to extract it in a new class.
Putting all this together, what you could do here, is:
Create a kind of helper class with this hello method as public. You can then easily unit test it
Let your current class use an instance of this helper class
Test the public methods of your current class which relies on _hello: if this private has a bug, it should be catch by those higher level tests
I don't like either of the above answers. dart's private variable test design is very bad. dart's private visibility is based on library, and each .dart file is a library by default, similar language is rust, but rust can write test code directly in the file, there is no private visibility problem, while dart does not allow this.
Again, I don't think #visibleForTesting is a valid solution,
Because #visibleForTesting can only be used to decorate public declarations, it serves as a mere analysis reminder that developers cannot invoke these declarations in other files,
But from a syntax point of view, developers can't use the _ prefix either, so the form, public, private, becomes confusing. and violates dart's own naming rules.
The argument that one should not test private, or that they should be separated into other classes, is like a justification that is completely unacceptable.
First, private exist because they belong to a business logic/model etc. in a contextual relationship, and it does not make logical sense to separate it into another class.
Second, if you must do this, it will greatly increase the complexity of the code, for example, you move to other classes will lose access to the context variables, or you have to pass a separate reference, or have to create an instance of the class, indeed, then you can finally do some mocks, but you also add a layer of abstraction,
It's hard to imagine that if you were to do this for the whole project, you'd probably double your entire code layers.
For now, If you want your dart package to get more than 90% coverage,
you should not define any private.
It sounds harsh, but that's the real story.
[Alternative] No one seems to have mentioned this yet,
Using part / part of to expose the privates, you can define a test-specific .dart file as the public interface to the library(file) to be tested, and use it to expose all the private declarations that need to be tested. you can name them xxx.fortest.dart
But this is more of a psychological solution, since you are still essentially exposing all private variables/methods
But at least, it's better than splitting class,
Also, if one day dart finally solves this problem, we can simply delete these .fortest.dart files.
A suggestion would be to NOT make methods/classes private but to move code, where you want to hide implementation details, to the lib/src folder.
This folder is considered private.
I found this approach on the fuchsia.dev page in this section under "Testing".
If you want to expose those private methods/classes, that are located in the src folder, to the public, you could export them inside your lib/main file.
I tried to import one of my libraries A (projects are libraries) into another library B and couldn't import code that was in the src folder of library A.
According to this StackOverflow answer it could still be possible to access the src folder from A in library B.
From the dart documentation
As you might expect, the library code lives under the lib directory and is public to other packages. You can create any hierarchy under lib, as needed. By convention, implementation code is placed under lib/src. Code under lib/src is considered private; other packages should never need to import src/.... To make APIs under lib/src public, you can export lib/src files from a file that’s directly under lib.
I am trying to get familiar with TDD concept and wrote a first test that its "act" part looks like this:
repositoryStub = new Mock<IMyRepository>();
var sut = new MyController(repositoryStub.Object);
var result = sut.Index() as ViewResult;
The controller (MyController) that I am instantiating eventually (deep down) uses ConfigurationManager.AppSettings, while creating view model. The instantiation of the controller fails on the line that is trying to read from Web.Config, but, obviously, runs as expected if project is just run from IDE.
I am reading a constant from web.config file, which should not affect the test and it wasn't expected that it will fail once called from another (MyProject.Test) project.
My question to you guys is how to overcome this obstacle?
I don't know if it matters here, but just in case, I am using xUnit for TDD.
Thanks!
You need to realize that configuration you're using deep down is the same kind of dependency as IMyRepository. You inject repository via abstract contract (interface). Why the same isn't done for configuration? Quick and naive solution would be to create IConfiguration interface and implement it by simply delegating calls to ConfigurationManager. Your constructor would look like this:
public class MyController(IMyRepository repository, IConfiguration configuration)
What does that tell us? Well, not much unfortunately. Fact that controller requires configuration is very vague. Real question is, what's the exact parameter from configuration it needs? You need to identify that very parameter and that's the real dependency you want to inject. Consider:
MyController(IMyRepository repository, IConfiguration configuration)
MyController(IMyRepository repository, int serviceCallTimeoutSeconds)
MyController(IMyRepository repository, string serviceAccessKey)
Which one communicates its purpose better? The more single-feature oriented your controller is, the less parameters it should use. Your problem might not be where you think it is.
I'm simply looking for advice on the best way I should handle this situation.
Right now I've got several files in a folder called Service. The files contact several functions which do random things of course. Each of these files needs access to the SM Adapter.
My question is, should I implement the ServiceManagerAwareInterface in each of these files OR should I just make a new class which implements the ServiceManagerAwareInterface and just extend my classes on the new class which implements this service?
Both ways work as they should, just not sure which way would be more proper.
If you think that your system will always rely on ZF2, both approaches are equivalent.
Now from an OO design perspective, personally I have a preference for the approach in which you extend your service then implement the ServiceManagerAwareInterface. I would even use an interface for the dependency over the ServiceLocator to protect even more my classes. Why?
Extending your classes does not cost you a lot, same for making your class depending on interfaces.
Let's take this example, Imagine you did not use this approach during a ZF1 project, during which you had probably resolved your dependencies with the Zend_Registry.
Now, let's assume you moved to a ZF2 implementation, how much time you think you'll spend refactoring your code from something like Zend_Registry::get($serviceX) to $this->getServiceManager()->get($serviceX) on your Service layer?
Now Assume you had made the choice of protecting your classes, first by creating your own Service locator interface, as simple as:
public interface MyOwnServiceLocatorInterface{
public function get($service);
}
Under ZF1 you had created an adapter class using the Zend_Registry:
public class MyZF1ServiceLocator implements MyOwnServiceLocatorInterface{
public function get($service){
Zend_Registry::get($service);
}
}
Your Service classes are not coupled to the Zend_Registry, which make the refactoring much more easier.
Now, You decide to move to ZF2 so you'll logically use the ServiceManger. You create then this new Adapter class:
public class MyZF2ServiceLocator implements
ServiceManagerAwareInterface,MyOwnServiceLocatorInterface
{
private $_sm;
public function get($service){
$this->_sm->get($service);
}
public function setServiceManager($serviceManager){
$this->_sm = $serviceManager;
}
}
Again, your Service classes are not coupled to the ZF2 ServiceManger.
Now, how would look like the configuration/registration of you Service layer on the ServiceManager. Well, you'll use your Module::getServiceConfig class for that:
//Module.php
public function getServiceConfig()
{
return array(
'factories'=>array(
'My\ServiceA'=>function($sm){
return new My\ServiceA($sm->get('My\Service\Name\Space\MyZF2ServiceLocator'));
}
//Some other config
)
}
As you can see, no refactoring is needed within your Service classes as we protected them by relying on interface and using adapters. As we used a closure factory, we don't even need to extend our Service classes and implement the ServiceLocatorAwareInterface.
Now, before concluding in my previous example i have to note that I did not treat the case in which my classes are constructed via factories, however, you can check one of my previous answers that address the factory topic but also the importance of loose coupling among an application layers.
you can add initializers to do that. It can reduce repetitive injection in getting the service that pass db adapter. OR, you can set abstract_factories, it will reduce repetitive SM registration. I just posted SM Cheatsheet here, Hope helpful :)
https://samsonasik.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/zend-framework-2-cheat-sheet-service-manager/
I have a guice based app that now needs multiple instances of a given type so I plan on using a named annotation to disambiguate the dependencies. However a dependency of this type also needs to vary based on which one I get.
To illustrate lets say I have
#Singleton
public class FooCache {
private final FooCacheListener listener;
#Inject
public FooCache(FooCacheListener listener) {
this.listener = listener;
}
// do stuff
}
and then lets say I have a need for 2 separate instances so I might have
#ThatOne FooCache
in one class and
#ThisOne FooCache
in another.
Now lets say I want a different listener in each case (maybe one writes something to a database and the other sends a notification over JMS or to some distributed cache). How would I do that? I can't see that I can stick a name on the FooCacheListener as I'd need a different name in one situation vs the other whereas I have just one place here. The only way I can think of doing this is by subclassing FooCache but that seems a really clumsy approach to me.
Cheers
Matt
You might be able to use PrivateModules. Go here and scroll down to How do I build two similar but slightly different trees of objects? It is a way to have two different instances of the same class,which sounds almost exactly what you are trying to do. You could pass in your cachelisteners instead of the "lefty" and "righty" passed in in the example.
There are more links with details from there if it looks like what you want.
Another option might be to inject a factory, which is also discussed in the link above, in the question How do I pass a parameter when creating an object via Guice?