It happens that there are sometimes lines of code or methods that can't produce mutants that are going to be killed by any relevant test. (For instance I may be using a null pattern object, and some of the implemented methods are not relevant in prod, so any implementation (even throwing) would be correct).
It would be nice to be able to tell pit to avoid them (so that the mutation coverage is more relevant), but I couldn't find a way to do it in the documentation.
Is there a way to do it?
PIT currently has five mechanisms by which code can be filtered out.
By class, using the excludedClasses parameter
By method, using excludedMethods
Using a custom mutation filter
By adding an annotation named Generated, CoverageIgnore, or DoNotMutate with at least class level retention. (N.B javax.annotation.Generated has only source retention and will not work)
The arcmutate base extensions allow mutation to be filtered using code comments or external text files
For your use case it sounds like options 1, 4 or 5 would fit.
Option 2 only allows for a method to be filtered in all classes (this is most commonly used to prevent mutations in toString or hashcode methods).
Option 3 is a little involved, but would allow you to (for example) to filter out methods with a certain annotation.
An aside.
I don't I follow your example of the null object pattern.
A null object needs to implement all methods of an interface and it is expected that they will be called. If they were to throw this would break the pattern.
In the most common version of the pattern the methods would be empty, so there would be nothing to mutate apart from return values.
This behaviour would be worth describing with tests. If your null object fails to return whatever values are considered neutral this would cause a problem.
Related
I'm making a method inside a Ruby on Rails app called "print" that can take any string and converts it into a png. I've been told it's not good to make class methods for base ruby classes like String or Array or Hash, etc. so "some string to print".print is probably not something I should do.
I was thinking about making a subclass of String called Print (class Print < String) and storing it in my lib/assets folder. So it would look like: Print.new("some string to print"). So my question is, am I on the right track by 1) creating a sub-class from String and 2) storing it in lib/assets?
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Answers to your question will necessarily be subjective because there are always be many answers to "where should I put functionality?", according to preference, principle, habit, customs, etc. I'll list a few and describe them, maybe add some of my personal opinions, but you'll ultimately have to choose and accept the consequences.
Note: I'll commonly refer to the common degenerate case of "losing namespacing scope" or "as bad as having global methods".
Monkeypatch/Extend String
Convenient and very "OO-message-passing" style at the cost of globally affecting all String in your application. That cost can be large because doing so breaks an implicit boundary between Ruby core and your application and it also scatters a component of "your application" in an external place. The functionality will have global scope and at worst will unintentionally interact with other things it shouldn't.
Worthy mention: Ruby has a Refinements feature that allows you to do do "scoped monkeypatching".
Worthy mention 2: Ruby also lets you includes modules into existing classes, like String.class_eval { include MyCustomization } which is slightly better because it's easier to tell a customization has been made and where it was introduced: "foo".method(:custom_method).owner will reveal it. Normal Monkeypatching will make it as if the method was defined on String itself.
Utils Module
Commonly done in all programming languages, a Util module is simply a single namespace where class methods/static methods are dumped. This is always an option to avoid the global pollution, but if Util ends up getting used everywhere anyways and it gets filled to the brim with unrelated methods, then the value of namespacing is lost. Having a method in a Util module tends to signify not enough thought was put into organizing code, since without maintenance, at it's worst, it's not much better than having global methods.
Private Method
Suppose you only need it in one class -- then it's easy to just put it into one private method. What if you need it in many classes? Should you make it a private method in a base class? If the functionality is inherent to the class, something associated with the class's identity, then Yes. Used correctly, the fact that this message exists is made invisible to components outside of that class.
However, this has the same downfall as the Rails Helper module when used incorrectly. If the next added feature requires that functionality, you'll be tempted to add the new feature to the class in order to have access to it. In this way the class's scope grows over time, eventually becoming near-global in your application.
Helper Module
Many Rails devs would suggest to put almost all of these utility methods inside rails Helper modules. Helper modules are kind of in between Utils Module and Private Method options. Helpers are included and have access to private members like Private Methods, and they suggest independence like Utils Modules (but do not guarantee it). Because of these properties, they tend to end up appearing everywhere, losing namespacing, and they end up accessing each other's private members, losing independence. This means it's more powerful, but can easily become much worse than either free-standing class/static methods or private methods.
Create a Class
If all the cases above degenerate into a "global scope", what if we forcibly create a new, smaller scope by way of a new class? The new class's purpose will be only to take data in and transform it on request on the way out. This is the common wisdom of "creating many, small classes", as small classes will have smaller scopes and will be easier to handle.
Unfortunately, taking this strategy too far will result in having too many tiny components, each of which do almost nothing useful by themselves. You avoid the ball of mud, but you end up with a chunky soup where every tiny thing is connected to every other tiny thing. It's just as complicated as having global methods all interconnected with each other, and you're not much better off.
Meta-Option: Refactor
Given the options above all have the same degenerate case, you may think there's no hope and everything will always eventually become horribly global -- Not True! It's important to understand they all degenerate in different ways.
Perhaps functionality 1, 2, 3, 4... 20 as Util methods are a complete mess, but they work cohesively as functionality A.1 ~ A.20 within the single class A. Perhaps class B is a complete mess and works better broken apart into one Util method and two private methods in class C.
Your lofty goal as an engineer will be to organize your application in a configuration that avoids all these degenerate cases for every bit of functionality in the system, making the system as a whole only as complex as necessary.
My advice
I don't have full context of your domain, and you probably won't be able to communicate that easily in a SO question anyways, so I can't be certain what'll work best for you.
However, I'll point out that it's generally easier to combine things than it is to break them apart. I generally advise starting with class/static methods. Put it in Util and move it to a better namespace later (Printer?). Perhaps in the future you'll discover many of these individual methods frequently operate on the same inputs, passing the same data back and forth between them -- this may be a good candidate for a class. This is often easier than starting off with a class or inheriting other class and trying to break functionality apart, later.
After I went through OData doc, I still do not understand the meaning of <FunctionImport>.
What is that used for?
Some one said that "Function imports are used to perform custom operations on a JPA entity in addition to CRUD operations. For example, consider a scenario where you would like to check the availability of an item to promise on the sales order line items. ATP check is a custom operation that can be exposed as a function import in the schema of OData service."
But I think above requirement can be achieved by general <Function> also, right?
What is the difference between <FunctionImport> and <Function> exactly?
I do appreciate anyone's help!
Thanks
There are three types of functions in OData:
Functions that are bound to something (e.g. an entity). Example would be
GET http://host/service/Products(1)/Namespace.GetCategories()
such function is defined in the metadata using the <function> element and with its isBound attribute set to true.
Unbound functions. They are usually used in queries. E.g.
GET http://host/service/Products?$filter(Name eq Namespace.GetTheLongestProductName())
such function is defined in the metadata using the <function> element with its isBound attribute set to false
Function imports. They are the functions that can be invoked at the service root. E.g.
GET http://host/service/GetMostExpensiveProduct()
Their concept is a little bit similar as the concept of static functions in program languages, and they are defined in metadata using the <functionimport> element.
Similar distinguishing applies to <action> and <actionimport> as well.
OK, I got the answer by myself.
<OData Version 4.0 Part 1: Protocol Plus Errata 02>:
Operations allow the execution of custom logic on parts of a data model. Functions are operations that do not have side effects and may support further composition, for example, with additional filter operations, functions or an action. Actions are operations that allow side effects, such as data modification, and cannot be further composed in order to avoid non-deterministic behavior. Actions and functions are either bound to a type, enabling them to be called as members of an instance of that type, or unbound, in which case they are called as static operations. Action imports and function imports enable unbound actions and functions to be called from the service root.
This is more a simple personal attempt to understand what goes on inside Rascal. There must be better (if not already supported) solution.
Here's the code:
fileLoad = |home:///PHPAnalysis/systems/ApilTestScripts/simple1.php|;
fileAST=loadPHPFile(fileLoad,true,false);
//assign a simple id to each node
public map[value,int] assignID12(node N)
{
myID=();
visit(N)
{
case node M:
{
name=getName(M);
myID[name] =999;
}
}
return myID;
}
ids=assignID12(fileAST);
gives me
|stdin:///|(92,4,<1,92>,<1,96>): Expected str, but got value
loadPHPFile returns a node of type: list[Stmt], where each Stmt is one of the many types of statements that could occur in a program (PHP, in my case). Without going into why I'd do this, why doesn't the above code work? Especially frustrating because a very simple example is worked out in the online documentation. See: http://tutor.rascal-mpl.org/Recipes/Basic/Basic.html#/Recipes/Common/CountConstructors/CountConstructors.html
I started a new console, and it seems to work. Of course, I changed the return type from map[value,int] to map[str,int] as it was originally in the example.
The problem I was having was that I may have erroneously defined the function previously. While I quickly fixed an apparent problem, it kept giving me errors. I realized that in Rascal, when you've started a console and imported certain definitions, it (seems)is impossible to overwrite those definitions. The interpreter keeps making reference to the very first definition that you provided. This could just be the interpreter performing a type-check, and preventing unintentional and/or incompatible assignments further down the road. That makes sense for variables (in the typical program sense), but it doesn't seem like the best idea to enforce that on functions (or methods). I feel it becomes cumbersome, because a user typically has to undergo some iterations before he/she is satisfied with a function definition. Just my opinion though...
Most likely you already had the name ids in scope as having type map[str,int], which would be the direct source of the error. You can look in script https://github.com/cwi-swat/php-analysis/blob/master/src/lang/php/analysis/cfg/LabelState.rsc at the function labelScript to see how this is done in PHP AiR (so you don't need to write this code yourself). What this will give you is a script where all the expressions and statements have an assigned ID, as well as the label state, which just keeps track of some info used in this labeling operation (mainly the counter to generate a unique ID).
As for the earlier response, the best thing to do is to give your definitions in modules which you can import. If you do that, any changes to types, etc will be picked up (automatically if the module is already imported, since Rascal will reimport the module for you if it has changed, or when you next import the module). However, if you define something directly in the console, this won't happen. Think of the console as one large module that you keep adding to. Since we can have overloads of functions, if you define the function again you are really defining a new alternative to the function, but this may not work like you expect.
I am trying to use Dart to tersely define entities in an application, following the idiom of code = configuration. Since I will be defining many entities, I'd like to keep the code as trim and concise and readable as possible.
In an effort to keep boilerplate as close to 0 lines as possible, I recently wrote some code like this:
// man.dart
part of entity_component_framework;
var _man = entity('man', (entityBuilder) {
entityBuilder.add([TopHat, CrookedTeeth]);
})
// test.dart
part of entity_component_framework;
var man = EntityBuilder.entities['man']; // null, since _man wasn't ever accessed.
The entity method associates the entityBuilder passed into the function with a name ('man' in this case). var _man exists because only variable assignments can be top-level in Dart. This seems to be the most concise way possible to use Dart as a DSL.
One thing I wasn't counting on, though, is lazy initialization. If I never access _man -- and I had no intention to, since the entity function neatly stored all the relevant information I required in another data structure -- then the entity function is never run. This is a feature, not a bug.
So, what's the cleanest way of using Dart as a DSL given the lazy initialization restriction?
So, as you point out, it's a feature that Dart doesn't run any code until it's told to. So if you want something to happen, you need to do it in code that runs. Some possibilities
Put your calls to entity() inside the main() function. I assume you don't want to do that, and probably that you want people to be able to add more of these in additional files without modifying the originals.
If you're willing to incur the overhead of mirrors, which is probably not that much if they're confined to this library, use them to find all the top-level variables in that library and access them. Or define them as functions or getters. But I assume that you like the property that variables are automatically one-shot. You'd want to use a MirrorsUsed annotation.
A variation on that would be to use annotations to mark the things you want to be initialized. Though this is similar in that you'd have to iterate over the annotated things, which I think would also require mirrors.
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?