Exist some class:
class A{
protected $options;
public function setDefaults($defaults){
$this->options=$defaults;
}
public function getOptions(){
return $this->options;
}
}
And other class:
class B{
public function setDefaultOptions(A $options){
$options->setDefaults('foo'=>'bar')
}
}
Uses:
$a=new A();
$b=new B();
$b->setDefaultsOptions(a);
How I can check in spec for B that $a->options['foo'] is set?
Now I implement it as:
public function getMatchers(){
return array('haveResolverKey'=>
function($subject, $key){
$resolver=new A();
$subject->setDefaultOptions($resolver);
$ret=$resolver->getOptions();
return isset($ret[$key]);
});
}
Maybe exist easy way?
How I can check in spec for B that $a->options['foo'] is set?
You shouldn't. Verify the behaviour instead of a state.
In other words you should verify outputs of methods and express expectations against collaborators, instead of verifying the internal state of your classes.
Internals might change once you refactor, behaviour should remain the same.
As far as I understood your example, it could be described as:
class BSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
function it_sets_defaults_on_a(A $a)
{
$a->setDefaults(array('foo' => 'bar'))->shouldBeCalled();
$this->setDefaultOptions($a);
}
}
Related
Is it possible to call a second ancestor method in dart? something like super.super.hello()? If it's possible, how can it be written?
class A {
void hello() {
print('A');
}
}
class B extends A {
#override
void hello() {
print('B');
}
}
class C extends B {
#override
void hello() {
// How to call the hello() implemented in the class A here?
}
}
void main() {
var c = C();
c.hello();
}
It's not possible.
The reason it's not possible is that it breaks abstraction.
When you look at class C extend B, all you need to know about B is which signatures its members has and which interfaces it implements. As long as that stays effectively the same, your valid code will keep working.
Consider what would happen if the author of B decided to make themselves a helper base-class:
abstract class _BaseB extends A {
String get _myName;
#override
void hello() {
print(_myName);
}
}
class B extends _BaseB {
#override
String get _myName => "B";
}
That's a perfectly valid refactoring. The resulting class B has all the same members and implements all the same interfaces (and also _BaseB, but it's private so nobody can see that).
The C class above would keep working if all it does is to call super.hello(). If it had a way to ask for super.super.hello(), that might no longer be valid.
Similarly if the B class was changed to:
class B implements A {
#override
void hello() {
print("B");
}
}
(changing extends to implements), then all methods of B works the same as before and it implements the same interfaces. Again, there is no visible differences to the users of the B class.
But if you could call something like A.super.hello() to reach the A class's hello method, then that would now break because that method isn't in the B class at all.
So, by restricting super.hello() to only call methods on the precise class you write as the superclass, you are prevented from introducing dependencies on the implementation of B, dependencies which would make otherwise valid refactorings into breaking changes.
How can I abstract that a methods has optional parameters?
abstract class CopyWith<T>{
T copyWith({}); // Error : Expected an identifier.
}
If I add an identifier like {test} it works and subclasses can have additional arguments
What I want to achieve?
I have a complex state manager, I make some abstraction , the following code is a minimal code, show my problem
import 'dart:collection';
abstract class CopyWith<T> {
T copyWith(OPTIONAL_NAMED_ARGUMENTS);
}
abstract class Manager<K, V extends CopyWith> {
final _map = HashMap<K, V>();
add(K key,V value){
_map[key] = value;
}
void copyWith(K key,OPTIONAL_NAMED_ARGUMENTS) {
assert(key != null);
if (_map.containsKey(key)) {
_map[key].copyWith(OPTIONAL_NAMED_ARGUMENTS);
}
}
}
class User implements CopyWith {
final int id;
final String name;
User({this.id, this.name});
User copyWith({int id, String name}) {
return User(
id: id ?? this.id,
name: name ?? this.name,
);
}
}
class UserManager extends Manager<int, User> {}
void main() {
final userManager = UserManager();
userManager.add(1,User(1,'test'));
userManager.copyWith(1,{test:'test2'})
}
As some one who has faced this issue in my library, I would say the only way is to not put a copyWith in your base class.
Why? Because you should only make a function polymorphic when there IS actually a shared calling convention and behavior. In your example, The way that these two classes perform copyWith is just different. It is, and should be, an error to send a name to Manager.copyWith, because Manager does not have a name to begin with. If you encounter a name inside a Manager.copyWith, that means there is some serious error in your code.
Also, if you actually try to invoke copyWith, as a responsible programmer, you will probably check if you are allowed to pass a name, which is,
if (someObj is User) {
someObj.copyWith(key, name: name);
} else if (someObj is Manager) {
throw IllegalStateError('You should not pass a name to a Manager! What am I supposed to do with the name now?');
}
There, you have already done type checking, so no need to make copyWith polymorphic.
However, some common behaviors can be made polymorphic, like updateKey. You can make Keyable as an interface, and Keyable updateKey(Key key) as an abstract method, and delegate to a non-polymorphic copyWith inside each subclasses.
Consider the following generic class:
class Foo<T extends Bar<dynamic>> {}
How can I obtain the generic argument of Bar at compile time?
I would expect the following code to print int, but it prints dynamic:
class Bar<T> {}
class Foo<T extends Bar<dynamic>> {
Foo(this.value) {
_debugBarType(value);
}
final T value;
void _debugBarType<A>(Bar<A> value) {
print(A);
}
}
void main() {
Foo<Bar<int>>(Bar());
}
I know I could do:
class Foo<A, Bar<A>> {}
But I would like to define the Foo class using a single generic parameter instead of two.
This is currently not possible to do on any class.
There's currently a pending feature request on Dart to support such use-case: https://github.com/dart-lang/language/issues/620
It's worth noting that there's a workaround if you can add a method on the class concerned.
For example, say you have a generic class Model<T>:
class Model<T> {
T value;
}
Then you can add a "capture" method as such:
class Model<T> {
T value;
R capture<T>(void cb<P>(P value)) => cb<T>(value);
}
This then allows you to write:
void someFunction<T extends Model<dynamic>>(T model) {
model.capture(<P>(value) {
// `P` will be the captured type instead of `dynamic`
});
}
I have a command class that needs to have 2 constructors. However,
using structuremap it seems that I can only specify one constructor to
be used. I have solved the problem for now by subtyping the specific
command class, which each implementation implementing it's own
interface and constructor. Like the code below shows. The
ISelectCommand implements two separate interfaces for the
string constructor and the int constructor, just for the sake of
registering the two subtypes using structuremap.
However, I consider this a hack and I just wonder why is it not
possible for structuremap to resolve the constructor signature by the
type passed in as parameter for the constructor? Then I could register
the SelectProductCommand as an ISelectCommand and
instantiate it like:
ObjectFactury.With(10).Use>();
orObjectFactury.With("testproduct").Use>();
public class SelectProductCommand : ISelectCommand<IProduct>,
ICommand, IExecutable
{
private readonly Func<Product, Boolean> _selector;
private IEnumerable<IProduct> _resultList;
public SelectProductCommand(Func<Product, Boolean> selector)
{
_selector = selector;
}
public IEnumerable<IProduct> Result
{
get { return _resultList; }
}
public void Execute(GenFormDataContext context)
{
_resultList = GetProductRepository().Fetch(context,
_selector);
}
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct,
Product>>();
}
}
public class SelectProductIntCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductIntCommand(Int32 id): base(x =>
x.ProductId == id) {}
}
public class SelectProductStringCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductStringCommand(String name): base(x =>
x.ProductName.Contains(name)) {}
}
P.s. I know how to tell structuremap what constructor map to use, but my again my question is if there is a way to have structuremap select the right constructor based on the parameter passed to the constructor (i.e. using regular method overloading).
The short answer is this post by the creator of Structuremap.
The long answer is regarding the structure you have in that piece of code. In my view, a command is by definition a "class" that does something to an "entity", i.e it modifies the class somehow. Think CreateNewProductCommand.
Here you are using commands for querying, if I'm not mistaken. You also have a bit of a separation of concern issue floating around here. The command posted defines what to do and how to do it, which is to much and you get that kind of Service location you're using in
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct, Product>>();
}
The way I'd structure commands is to use CreateProductCommand as a data contract, i.e it only contains data such as product information.
Then you have a CreateProductCommandHandler which implements IHandles<CreateProductCommand> with a single method Handle or Execute. That way you get better separation of concern and testability.
As for the querying part, just use your repositores directly in your controller/presenter, alternatively use the Query Object pattern
I think I solved the problem using a small utility class. This class gets the concrete type from ObjectFactory and uses this type to construct the instance according to the parameters past into the factory method. Now on the 'client' side I use ObjectFactory to create an instance of CommandFactory. The implementation of CommandFactory is in another solution and thus the 'client solution' remains independent of the 'server' solution.
public class CommandFactory
{
public ICommand Create<T>()
{
return Create<T>(new object[] {});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2, object arg3)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2, arg3});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object[] arguments)
{
return (ICommand)Activator.CreateInstance(GetRegisteredType<T>(), arguments);
}
public static Type GetRegisteredType<T>()
{
return ObjectFactory.Model.DefaultTypeFor(typeof (T));
}
}
I using StructureMap to create instances of ModuleData
I have many classes that inherit from ModuleData(class A,B,C...) and each of them get Config1 or Config2 in coustructor
In Registry(located in file1.cs) I scan all types of ModuleData.
In Get(lacated in file2.cs) I get the instance.
I want that when ObjectFactory creates Config1/Config2 while creating instance of ModuleData it will pass "param" to Config1/Config2 constructors.
How I can configure structuremap to do this?
P.S. Registry & Get methods are located in different files!!!
Thank you
public class Config1
{
Config1(string param)
{
}
}
public class Config2
{
Config2(string param)
{
}
}
//.....//
public class A : ModuleData
{
A(Config1 c)
{
}
}
public class B : ModuleData
{
A(Config2 c)
{
}
}
//....//
//located in file1.cs
public Registry()
{
Scan(x =>
{
x.TheCallingAssembly();
x.AddAllTypesOf<ModuleData>();
});
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.For<Config1>().Use<Config1>();
x.For<Config2>().Use<Config2>();
});
}
//....//
//located in file2.cs
public ModuleData Get(object o)
{
var module = o as PageModule;
var t = Type.GetType(string.Format("{0}.{1},{2}", Settings.Namespace, module.Name, Settings.Assembly));
return ObjectFactory.With("param").EqualTo(module.Parameters).GetInstance(t) as ModuleData;
}
I can't think of a good way to do what you want, I think its a bit of a design problem... I think you would have to explain a bit more about why you need to do this for me to help you.
What is a page module? Why is your config objects dependent on it?
Based on your comment, I think what you need is a factory object that creates ModuleData objects for you. Since they are objects it does not make much sense to get them from the container. Think about using a data access technology like Entity Framework, it would not make sense to get those objects from the container. From what I can tell, this is a similar case.