Currently, we can define a global path that'll be used for all results, under all packages.
I have different paths for different results and hence, is it possible to have the resultPath package wise ?
Or is there something that can help me achieve this ?
Obviously, I don't want to write the complete result-location in every-result, neither I want to change at every place if the location changes.
A workaround is to use #ResultPath on a Class by Class basis;
apply it to some abstract baseActions, one per package.
All other actions will extend the one of their <package>, inheriting the ResultPath setting.
Related
Is it possible to add a package in the reflection-config.json?
Something like:
[
{
"name" : "org.apache.tinkerpop.shaded.kryo.serializers.*",
"allDeclaredConstructors" : true
}
}
Instead of doing it one by one.
Thanks :)
As far as I know, that isn't possible yet. There is an open feature request for this: https://github.com/oracle/graal/issues/1236
Probably the best would be to create a Feature class which would register classes for reflection programmatically. Here's a short example: https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/Reflection/#configuration-with-features
The feature class needs to be on classpath then referenced using the --features= command line option.
I am using tracing agent features to auto generate a list for reflection/jni/resources, this should be quite convenient until one day the wildcard features is implemented. (I bet it will not be implemented due to performance concern.)
Suppose there is a set of frequent imports that I would like not to have to repeat in every module. Is there a way to specify "frequent imports" that could be called instead. For example something like:
module frequentImports =
open System
open System.IO
...
Then instead of having to retype all the imports individually, the frequentImports module could be called instead. Obviously, the above approach doesn't work for me which is why the question.
Thanks.
There is no way to define something like a group of open statements and then just refer to the group. Generally, you just need to have all your open statements once per file.
The fact that you have too many of them that you want to repeat all the time might suggest that your code organisation is not optimal - I would think that if you have code structured by putting logically related things into a single file, then each file would need different imports.
One thing you could do - though I don't think it's all that nice - is that you could define a module with module and type aliases for the things you commonly need.
Say, if I wanted to avoid opening Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection and System.Collections.Generic, I could define a module with aliases for the things I need:
module MyThings =
type Dictionary<'k,'v> = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<'k, 'v>
type FSharpType = Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpType
type FSharpValue = Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpValue
Using open MyThings now gives me access to the three types (and the same would work for modules too). That said, this does not automatically import all definitions and I think it's probably not worth doing this - but it's an option.
In the zf2 database and models tutorial a path such as this leads to a directory containing my model classes:
module/Album/src/Album/Model
I have created two more classes at:
module/Album/src/Album/Model/AlbumRelatedClass.php
module/Album/src/Album/Model/AlbumRelatedTable.php
I would like to put these classes at
module/Album/src/AlbumRelated/Model/
I have created duplicates of the model classes there for the purposes of this test, unfortunately, my module config for Album tells me that it cannot find the classes at the AlbumRelated location. I have tried changing the namespaces in the AlbumRelated location to AlbumRelated\Model and directly referring to the class location (\Album\Model\AlbumRelated()) without success.
Does anyone know how I can do this? If I shouldn't be doing this, can somebody explain why? I'm also interested to know why the folder structure is Album/Model/Album (it seems redundant, and I wasn't clear on the explanation in the tutorial).
Any help given would be great, thanks :)
The short answer is that it can't find the class because you probably didn't set up the autoloader config to know about a new "AlbumRelated" namespace. Look at what happens in \Album\Module::getAutoloaderConfig(). You probably want to add a key/value pair to namespaces like 'AlbumRelated' => __DIR__ . '/src/AlbumRelated'. That will tell the autoloader where to look for classes under the AlbumRelated namespace.
That said,
If I shouldn't be doing this, can somebody explain why?
You probably shouldn't be doing it that way. You've got a top-level namespace called \Album. Then you have \Album\Model namespace under it. Any models related to Albums ought to live there. Imagine you had an entity in your system for Record Labels, so you could associate an Album with the label that released it. The ZF2 expectation is that you'd create a class called \Album\Model\RecordLabel that lived in module/Album/src/Album/Model/RecordLabel.php. As long as we assume that RecordLabels are primarily related to albums, that all makes perfect sense.
Of course, you could stick RecordLabel in it's own module as well, if you had a lot of workflow around managing them.
I'm also interested to know why the folder structure is Album/Model/Album
I assume you mean Album/src/Album. That redundancy is to keep a nice clean PSR-0 setup. So, the first Album is identifying the module, and the second is the top-level of the Album namespace. This provides maximum flexibility, but isn't a hard and fast rule. See Rob Allen's recent blog post about alternative module layouts in zf2 for an exploration.
How can I add filters to skip some of the classes in a namespace/assembly. For example: SYM.UI is the base assembly and i want to skip SYM.UI.ViewModels. Writing the below filter but it is including all of them and not fulfilling my request:
+[SYM.UI*]* -[SYM.UI.ViewModels*]*
Kindly help me correcting this?
The opencover wiki is a good place to start.
The usage is described as +/-[modulefilter]typefilter (this is based on how you would see the types in IL; where the type filter also includes the namespace and module filter usually is the name of the assembly (without the file extension).
Thus to exclude your types you could use
+[SYM.UI]* -[SYM.UI]SYM.UI.ViewModels.*
NOTE: Exclusion filters take preference over inclusion filters.
You can use following:
"-filter:+[*]* -[SYM.UI]SYM.UI.ViewModels.*"
Note that the quotes must be around the -filter: part, too
I'm currently writing some functions that are related to lists that I could possibly be reused.
My question is:
Are there any conventions or best practices for organizing such functions?
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
Note that I'm not looking to fork and change the standard lists module, but to find a way to define new functions in a new module also called Lists, but avoid the consequent naming collisions by using some kind namespacing scheme.
Any advice or references would be appreciated.
Cheers.
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
No, so far as I know.
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
They are experimental and not generally used. You could have a module called lists in a different namespace, but you would have trouble calling functions from the standard module in this namespace.
I give you reasons why not to use lists:your_function() and instead use lists_extension:your_function():
Generally, the Erlang/OTP Design Guidelines state that each "Application" -- libraries are also an application -- contains modules. Now you can ask the system what application did introduce a specific module? This system would break when modules are fragmented.
However, I do understand why you would want a lists:your_function/N:
It's easier to use for the author of your_function, because he needs the your_function(...) a lot when working with []. When another Erlang programmer -- who knows the stdlb -- reads this code, he will not know what it does. This is confusing.
It looks more concise than lists_extension:your_function/N. That's a matter of taste.
I think this method would work on any distro:
You can make an application that automatically rewrites the core erlang modules of whichever distribution is running. Append your custom functions to the core modules and recompile them before compiling and running your own application that calls the custom functions. This doesn't require a custom distribution. Just some careful planning and use of the file tools and BIFs for compiling and loading.
* You want to make sure you don't append your functions every time. Once you rewrite the file, it will be permanent unless the user replaces the file later. Could use a check with module_info to confirm of your custom functions exist to decide if you need to run the extension writer.
Pseudo Example:
lists_funs() -> ["myFun() -> <<"things to do">>."].
extend_lists() ->
{ok, Io} = file:open(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH, [append]),
lists:foreach(fun(Fun) -> io:format(Io,"~s~n",[Fun]) end, lists_funs()),
file:close(Io),
c(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH).
* You may want to keep copies of the original modules to restore if the compiler fails that way you don't have to do anything heavy if you make a mistake in your list of functions and also use as source anytime you want to rewrite the module to extend it with more functions.
* You could use a list_extension module to keep all of the logic for your functions and just pass the functions to list in this function using funName(Args) -> lists_extension:funName(Args).
* You could also make an override system that searches for existing functions and rewrites them in a similar way but it is more complicated.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve and optimize this method. I use something similar to update some of my own modules at runtime, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on core modules also.
i guess what you want to do is to have some of your functions accessible from the lists module. It is good that you would want to convert commonly used code into a library.
one way to do this is to test your functions well, and if their are fine, you copy the functions, paste them in the lists.erl module (WARNING: Ensure you do not overwrite existing functions, just paste at the end of the file). this file can be found in the path $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/src/lists.erl. Make sure that you add your functions among those exported in the lists module (in the -export([your_function/1,.....])), to make them accessible from other modules. Save the file.
Once you have done this, we need to recompile the lists module. You could use an EmakeFile. The contents of this file would be as follows:
{"src/*", [verbose,report,strict_record_tests,warn_obsolete_guard,{outdir, "ebin"}]}.
Copy that text into a file called EmakeFile. Put this file in the path: $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/EmakeFile.
Once this is done, go and open an erlang shell and let its pwd(), the current working directory be the path in which the EmakeFile is, i.e. $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/.
Call the function: make:all() in the shell and you will see that the module lists is recompiled. Close the shell.
Once you open a new erlang shell, and assuming you exported you functions in the lists module, they will be running the way you want, right in the lists module.
Erlang being open source allows us to add functionality, recompile and reload the libraries. This should do what you want, success.