During writing validation rules a came across the problem that I need some content from a rule in my grammar which is hierarchically higher than the one I pass to my validationMethod.
I know that I can refer to a "higher" rule with .eContainer but then I don't have a clue how to access the values I want to.
For example I have the following grammar snippet:
rule1:
name=ID content=rule2
;
rule2:
<<whatever content>>
;
If I have a normal validationMethod with the argument rule1 then I can access the name via .name but when I give rule2 as an argument and then referring to rule via .eConatiner the .name method does not exist.
Greetings Krzmbrzl
EObject is the root class of all AST node classes. It comes from the EMF Ecore framework which is used by Xtext to generate the AST implementation. Therefore, the EObject class contains a lot of the tree structure features, e.g., iterating through a tree. The EObject.eContainer() method returns an element of type EObject which actually is the super type of the type of the actual returned object. To get access to methods of the next higher element, you have to cast the eContainers methods result like this:
#Check
public void check(rule2 r2) {
EObject o = r2.eContainer();
rule1 r1 = (rule1) o;
String r1Name = r1.getName();
}
If the type of the parent object is ambigous, you should test whether the actual type is the expected with an instanceof expression:
#Check
public void check(rule2 r2) {
EObject o = r2.eContainer();
if (o instanceof rule1) {
rule1 r1 = (rule1) o;
String r1Name = r1.getName();
}
}
Xtend provide the same instanceof-expression like Java. But if the object to be checked definetly can have more then a few types, you can use Xtends really powerful switch expression. It supports so called type guards. You can switch over any object and instead of case value: guards simply write the a concrete type:
switch (anyAbstractTypeObject) {
ConcreteSubtypeA: {...}
ConcreteSubtypeB: {...}
}
This is an elegant shorthand if-instanceof-eleseif-... in Xtend.
Related
I would like to understand how can I analyze methods / functions body to find types that are explicitly referenced from it. I have success analyzing method declaration (return type, parameter types, etc..), however I have no idea how to do that for body.
Assuming following function:
String someFunction(int param) {
final list = <String>['a', 'b', 'c']; // -> DartTypes: String, List<String>
final myClass = MyClass<Arg>(); // -> DartTypes: Arg, MyClass<Arg>
final functionCall = anotherFunction<FunctionArg<Arg>>(); // -> DartTypes: Arg, FunctionArg<Arg>
return 'result';
}
// At is point I would like to know that my function depends on
// String, List<String>, Arg, MyClass<Arg>, FunctionArg<Arg>
// in term of DartType instances with proper typeArguments.
I tried getting AstNode for method element described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/57043177/2033394
However I could not get elements from nodes to figure out their types. Their declaredElement values are always null. So I can not get back to Element API from AST API.
If you've used the exact snippet from the answer you've referenced, the problem is likely in getParsedLibraryByElement(). This method only parses the referenced library - meaning that you'll get an AST that doesn't necessarily have semantic references (like the declaredElement of AST nodes) set.
Instead, you'll want to use getResolvedLibraryByElement. The AST returned by that method will have its types and references fully resolved.
With the resolved AST, you could visit the body of the method with a custom visitor to find type references. Your definition of "referenced types" isn't really exact - but perhaps you can collect types in visitNamedType for type references and visitVariableDeclaration to collect the types of variables.
Dart has a handy map function on iterables, and it accepts a lambda. So I can write something like:
// Stupid example class
class Foo {
int v;
int v2() { return v*v; }
}
List<int> mapFoos(List<Foo> foos) {
return foos.map( (Foo f) => f.v2() );
}
But this feels a little clunky to me. I'm used to being able to tell map to use the member function directly, something that would look more like:
// does not compile
List<int> mapFoos(List<Foo> foos) {
return foos.map(Foo.v2);
}
But this fails to compile with the error:
The argument type '() → int' can't be assigned to the parameter type '(Foo) → int'
Is there some way to turn the member function into a lambda in a succinct way, so that
we can have something closer to the second example.
I could write
int applyV2(Foo f) {
return f.v2();
}
List<int> mapFoos(List<Foo> foos) {
return foos.map(applyV2);
}
but then I'd need to create that for each member function I want to map, which isn't really any better than using the lambda function.
If it makes any difference I'm using dart 1 due to "legacy reasons", if this has changed in recent versions I'd love to know that too.
No.
There is no shorter way to create a function which takes a Foo and calls its v2 method, than (f) => f.v2().
You can omit the Foo type on the parameter, because it can be inferred from the context (a List<X>.map<R> requires an R Function(X) as argument).
You cannot tear off Foo.v2 because v2 is an interface method, not a static method.
Just to elaborate on why Dart doesn't allow that, you can stop reading now if you just want to know what works:
Some languages allow you to tear off instance methods, so Foo.v2 becomes a function which expects its this object as an argument, in Dart a function of type int Function(Foo). Dart does not allow that. Probably for many different reasons, but most importantly because it cannot work. Dart types are interfaces, all class types can be implemented by another class without inheriting any implementation.
If you then tear off Foo.v2, you can call it with an instance of another class which implements Foo, but which won't necessarily find the private fields that Foo has, and which v2 could depend on.
Also, the tear-off would be covariant in its this-parameter.
Take SubFoo which extends Foo and has its own v2 method. If you do Foo foo = SubFoo(); var vtoo = foo.v2; then the static type of vtoo will be int Function(Foo), but the implementation from SubFoo will necessarily have runtime type int Function(SubFoo), which is not a subtype of the static type. That means it's unsound. The torn off function will have to do a run-time type check that its argument is actually a SubFoo, and throw if it's not. (So, that feature is not a good match for Dart.)
I have the following Dart 2 code with null-safety.
extension Foo<T> on List<T> {
List<U> bar<U>({
U Function(T)? transform,
}) {
final t = transform ?? _identityTransform;
return map(t).toList();
}
}
U _identityTransform<T, U>(T t) => t as U; // #1, #2
void main() {
final strings = ['a', 'b', 'c'].bar<String>(); // #3
final ints = ['1', '2', '3'].bar(transform: int.parse);
print(strings);
print(ints);
}
It is an extension method on List<T> with a custom method that is basically a map with the
difference that it can return a new list of the same type if no transform is specified. (My real code is more complex than this, but this example is enough to present my questions.)
I want to be able to call bar() on a List with transform or without; if called without it, _identityTransform should be used.
The code above works, but I have a few reservations as to its quality, and questions, as I haven't really come to terms with Dart generics yet:
In the line marked #1 - the _identityTransform takes two generic parameters as I need access to them, but when the function is used the generic types are not used because I don't think it is possible to write something like _identityTransform<T, U> there. Is there a better way of defining _identityTransform? Am I losing any type safety with my current code?
In the line marked #2 I need a cast as U for the code to compile, I haven't managed to make the code work without it. Is there a way to do it without the cast?
In the line marked #3, when I call the extension method without any transform (i.e. I want the identity transform to kick in) I need to explicitly pass the generic type, otherwise the compiler complains about missing generic type (in strong mode) or infers strings to be List<dynamic> (strong mode turned off). Is some generics magic possible to be able to call .bar() and still have strings be inferred to List<String>?
I would make _identityTransform a nested function of bar so that you can remove its type arguments and instead use the same T and U as bar:
extension Foo<T> on List<T> {
List<U> bar<U>({
U Function(T)? transform,
}) {
U _identityTransform(T t) => t as U;
final t = transform ?? _identityTransform;
return map(t).toList();
}
}
Alternatively if you want to explicitly use _identityTransform<T, U>, then you could use a closure: t = transform ?? (arg) => _identityTransform<T, U>(arg), but that seems like overkill.
You need the cast. T and U are independent/unrelated types. Since you don't know that you want T and U to be the same until bar checks its argument at runtime, you will need the explicit cast to satisfy static type checking.
If the caller passes nothing for the transform argument, there is nothing to infer U from, so it will be dynamic. I can't think of any magical way make U default to T in such a case (again, that would be known only at runtime, but generics must satisfy static analysis).
Having a C# class like
public abstract class ValueAttrProxy<T> : IAttrProxy where T : IEquatable<T>
{
public T Value { get; }
...
}
in F# when I try to pattern match it like so:
let attrValue (attr:IAttrProxy) =
match attr with
| :? ValueAttrProxy<'a> as attr -> attr.Value.ToString()
The type inference seems to work, but sending to interactive fails with the following error:
error FS0071: Type constraint mismatch when applying the default type 'IEquatable<'a>' for a type inference variable. The types ''a' and 'IEquatable<'a>' cannot be unified. Consider adding further type constraints
I am a bit stumped what is the problem, or where is the additional type annotation is expected.
Trying to specify IEquatable<'a> in the matching pattern like
| :? ValueAttrProxy<IEquatable<'a>> as attr -> attr.Value.ToString()
then even the type inference fails, and underlines the pattern with the same error message.
If I constrain the generic parameter to a specific type like int, then it works, but the point is that I just want the string representation of the Value, regardless of what its actual type is.
The issue is that when you write :? ValueAttrProxy<'a>, the compiler needs to infer the type of 'a statically. This is not a type that would be determined at runtime based on the value. If there are no constraints, the compiler will still happily compile this, but it will use obj as the default type of 'a.
This question is basically the same as a recent one on pattern matching against seq<'a> where you have exactly the same issue. The answer there shows how to solve the problem using reflection and this would work in your case too.
If you are in control of the C# classes, then it would be much easier to add BoxedValue property to the non-generic interface though:
public interface IAttrProxy {
public object BoxedValue { get; }
// (...)
}
public abstract class ValueAttrProxy<T> :
IAttrProxy where T : IEquatable<T> {
public T Value { get; }
// (...)
}
You can then just pattern match against IAttrProxy and access the value directly:
let attrValue (attr:IAttrProxy) =
attr.BoxedValue.ToString()
Updated below...
I recently started experimenting with ServiceStack in F#, so naturally I started with porting the Hello World sample:
open ServiceStack.ServiceHost
open ServiceStack.ServiceInterface
open ServiceStack.WebHost.Endpoints
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string }
[<CLIMutable>]
type HelloResponse = { Result : string }
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result = sprintf "Hello, %s!" req.Name }
type HelloAppHost() =
inherit AppHostBase("Hello Web Services", typeof<HelloService>.Assembly)
override x.Configure container = ()
type Global() =
inherit System.Web.HttpApplication()
member x.Application_Start() =
let appHost = new HelloAppHost()
appHost.Init()
That works great. It's very concise, easy to work with, I love it. However, I noticed that the routes defined in the sample allow for the Name parameter to not be included. Of course, Hello, ! looks kind of lame as output. I could use String.IsNullOrEmpty, but it is idiomatic in F# to be explicit about things that are optional by using the Option type. So I modified my Hello type accordingly to see what would happen:
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string option }
As soon as I did this, the F# type system forced me to deal with the fact that Name might not have a value, so I changed HelloService to this to get everything to compile:
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result =
match req.Name with
| Some name -> sprintf "Hello, %s!" name
| None -> "Hello!" }
This compiles, and runs perfectly when I don't supply a Name parameter. However, when I do supply a name...
KeyValueDataContractDeserializer: Error converting to type: Type
definitions should start with a '{', expecting serialized type
'FSharpOption`1', got string starting with: World
This wasn't a complete surprise of course, but it brings me to my question:
It would be trivial for me to write a function that can wrap an instance of type T into an instance of type FSharpOption<T>. Are there any hooks in ServiceStack that would let me provide such a function for use during deserialization? I looked, but I couldn't find any, and I'm hoping I was just looking in the wrong place.
This is more important for F# use than it might seem at first, because classes defined in F# are by default not allowed to be null. So the only (satisfying, non-hacky) way of having one class as an optional property of another class is with, you guessed it, the Option type.
Update:
I was able to sort-of get this working by making the following changes:
In the ServiceStack source, I made this type public:
ServiceStack.Text.Common.ParseFactoryDelegate
...and I also made this field public:
ServiceStack.Text.Jsv.JsvReader.ParseFnCache
With those two things public, I was able to write this code in F# to modify the ParseFnCache dictionary. I had to run this code prior to creating an instance of my AppHost - it didn't work if I ran it inside the AppHost's Configure method.
JsvReader.ParseFnCache.[typeof<Option<string>>] <-
ParseFactoryDelegate(fun () ->
ParseStringDelegate(fun s -> (if String.IsNullOrEmpty s then None else Some s) |> box))
This works for my original test case, but aside from the fact that I had to make brittle changes to the internals of ServiceStack, it sucks because I have to do it once for each type I want to be able to wrap in an Option<T>.
What would be better is if I could do this in a generic way. In C# terms, it would be awesome if I could provide to ServiceStack a Func<T, Option<T>> and ServiceStack would, when deserializing a property whose generic type definition matches that of the return type of my function, deserialize T and then pass the result into my function.
Something like that would be amazingly convenient, but I could live with the once-per-wrapped-type approach if it were actually part of ServiceStack and not my ugly hack that probably breaks something somewhere else.
So there are a couple of extensibility points in ServiceStack, on the framework level you can add your own Custom Request Binder this allows you to provide your own model binder that's used, e.g:
base.RequestBinders.Add(typeof(Hello), httpReq => {
var requestDto = ...;
return requestDto;
});
But then you would need to handle the model binding for the different Content-Types yourself, see CreateContentTypeRequest for how ServiceStack does it.
Then there are hooks at the JSON Serializer level, e.g:
JsConfig<Hello>.OnDeserializedFn = dto => newDto;
This lets you modify the instance of the type returned, but it still needs to be the same type but it looks like the F# option modifier changes the structural definition of the type?
But I'm open to adding any hooks that would make ServiceStack more palatable for F#.
What does the code look like to generically convert a normal Hello type to an F# Hello type with option?
The only thing I can think of is to replace the option type with your own type, one that has an implicit conversion from string to myOption, and anything else you need.
Not all that nice, but workable. Your type would probably also need to be serializable.
type myOption =
| None
| Some of string
static member public op_Implicit (s:string) = if s <> null then Some s else None
member public this.Value = match this with
| Some s -> s
| _ -> null
member this.Opt = match this with
| Some s -> Option.Some s
| None -> Option.None
Your record type would then be
[<CLIMutable>]
type Hello =
{ Name : myOption }
On the other hand, ServiceStack is open source, so maybe something could be done there.