I trying access to value Carrier by taking value from shipping_id. I testing queries at https://www.jsonquerytool.com/. If I type key by hand $.shipping_methods["11"] or $.shipping_methods.11I receive correct result ["Carrier"]. But I have problem with taking key value from shipping_id field. I was trying with many variations of this $.shipping_methods[$.shipping_id] but without success. It's possible with pure jsonPath?
{
"shipping_id":"11",
"shipping_methods":{
"10":"Post",
"11":"Carrier"
}
}
Depending on the JSON-Path implementation/environment you are using this may or may not be possible. This is because the feature you are asking for is not of the proposed standard, though some libraries have features that enable queries like that, e.g. in JSONPath-Plus you could use #property and #parent (I had no success using #root) - but those are 'extensions':
$.shipping_methods[?(#property == #parent.shipping_id)]
You can test this online here.
The page you have linked is using JSPath under the hood, and I cannot see any of the required features mentioned in the readme. It would be simpler to drill down in a general programming language that hosts the JSON-Path engine but not sure if this is an option here.
Related
In the past I used this to return any data structure via SAP RFC:
json = /ui2/cl_json=>serialize( data = <lt_result>
pretty_name = /ui2/cl_json=>pretty_mode-low_case ).
This works very well if <lt_result> is small, but for bigger data sets this is slow.
How can I return any data structure via a generic ABAP RFC function module? I use PyRFC, but AFAIK this should not matter much for this question.
This may perform better:
DATA(lo_json_writer) = cl_sxml_string_writer=>create( type = if_sxml=>co_xt_json ).
CALL TRANSFORMATION id
SOURCE result = <lt_result>
RESULT XML lo_json_writer.
ev_json_data = lo_json_writer->get_output( ). " yours export parameter
Taken from official documentation.
If performance is most important for you, then /ui2/cl_json is the wrong choice. While it is an ABAP code and SAP_BASIS 700 compatible syntax.
CALL TRANSFORMATION id is better with respect to performance. This is also written in my blog. BTW: I am an author of /ui2/cl_json.
But if it goes about flexibility, comfort, supported data types and desired format, then there is no better solution, for now, comparing to /ui2/cl_json.
Potentially, one can get some better, specialized implementation, using CALL TRANSFORMATION and own XSLT transformation, but it would be already slower then id one and would cost more coding effort.
There are still potential to make /ui2/cl_json faster, by dropping support of lower releases (below 7.40) and using the build in SXML parser for processing the JSON, but that would be some work to do. And I do not have a time / actual request for that.
#Sandra Rossi: I would be happy to apply any performance suggestions for /ui2/cl_json, so if you have concrete examples, please send them to me. Here or in the blog. But please take into consideration that for the current moment, I need to conform to SAP_BASIS 7.00 limits.
I read quite a lot about the visitor pattern and its supposed advantages. To me however it seems they are not that much advantages when applied in practice:
"Convenient" and "elegant" seems to mean lots and lots of boilerplate code
Therefore, the code is hard to follow. Also 'accept'/'visit' is not very descriptive
Even uglier boilerplate code if your programming language has no method overloading (i.e. Vala)
You cannot in general add new operations to an existing type hierarchy without modification of all classes, since you need new 'accept'/'visit' methods everywhere as soon as you need an operation with different parameters and/or return value (changes to classes all over the place is one thing this design pattern was supposed to avoid!?)
Adding a new type to the type hierarchy requires changes to all visitors. Also, your visitors cannot simply ignore a type - you need to create an empty visit method (boilerplate again)
It all just seems to be an awful lot of work when all you want to do is actually:
// Pseudocode
int SomeOperation(ISomeAbstractThing obj) {
switch (type of obj) {
case Foo: // do Foo-specific stuff here
case Bar: // do Bar-specific stuff here
case Baz: // do Baz-specific stuff here
default: return 0; // do some sensible default if type unknown or if we don't care
}
}
The only real advantage I see (which btw i haven't seen mentioned anywhere): The visitor pattern is probably the fastest method to implement the above code snippet in terms of cpu time (if you don't have a language with double dispatch or efficient type comparison in the fashion of the pseudocode above).
Questions:
So, what advantages of the visitor pattern have I missed?
What alternative concepts/data structures could be used to make the above fictional code sample run equally fast?
For as far as I have seen so far there are two uses / benefits for the visitor design pattern:
Double dispatch
Separate data structures from the operations on them
Double dispatch
Let's say you have a Vehicle class and a VehicleWasher class. The VehicleWasher has a Wash(Vehicle) method:
VehicleWasher
Wash(Vehicle)
Vehicle
Additionally we also have specific vehicles like a car and in the future we'll also have other specific vehicles. For this we have a Car class but also a specific CarWasher class that has an operation specific to washing cars (pseudo code):
CarWasher : VehicleWasher
Wash(Car)
Car : Vehicle
Then consider the following client code to wash a specific vehicle (notice that x and washer are declared using their base type because the instances might be dynamically created based on user input or external configuration values; in this example they are simply created with a new operator though):
Vehicle x = new Car();
VehicleWasher washer = new CarWasher();
washer.Wash(x);
Many languages use single dispatch to call the appropriate function. Single dispatch means that during runtime only a single value is taken into account when determining which method to call. Therefore only the actual type of washer we'll be considered. The actual type of x isn't taken into account. The last line of code will therefore invoke CarWasher.Wash(Vehicle) and NOT CarWasher.Wash(Car).
If you use a language that does not support multiple dispatch and you do need it (I can honoustly say I have never encountered such a situation though) then you can use the visitor design pattern to enable this. For this two things need to be done. First of all add an Accept method to the Vehicle class (the visitee) that accepts a VehicleWasher as a visitor and then call its operation Wash:
Accept(VehicleWasher washer)
washer.Wash(this);
The second thing is to modify the calling code and replace the washer.Wash(x); line with the following:
x.Accept(washer);
Now for the call to the Accept method the actual type of x is considered (and only that of x since we are assuming to be using a single dispatch language). In the implementation of the Accept method the Wash method is called on the washer object (the visitor). For this the actual type of the washer is considered and this will invoke CarWasher.Wash(Car). By combining two single dispatches a double dispatch is implemented.
Now to eleborate on your remark of the terms like Accept and Visit and Visitor being very unspecific. That is absolutely true. But it is for a reason.
Consider the requirement in this example to implement a new class that is able to repair vehicles: a VehicleRepairer. This class can only be used as a visitor in this example if it would inherit from VehicleWasher and have its repair logic inside a Wash method. But that ofcourse doesn't make any sense and would be confusing. So I totally agree that design patterns tend to have very vague and unspecific naming but it does make them applicable to many situations. The more specific your naming is, the more restrictive it can be.
Your switch statement only considers one type which is actually a manual way of single dispatch. Applying the visitor design pattern in the above way will provide double dispatch.
This way you do not necessarily need additional Visit methods when adding additional types to your hierarchy. Ofcourse it does add some complexity as it makes the code less readable. But ofcourse all patterns come at a price.
Ofcourse this pattern cannot always be used. If you expect lots of complex operations with multiple parameters then this will not be a good option.
An alternative is to use a language that does support multiple dispatch. For instance .NET did not support it until version 4.0 which introduced the dynamic keyword. Then in C# you can do the following:
washer.Wash((dynamic)x);
Because x is then converted to a dynamic type its actual type will be considered for the dispatch and so both x and washer will be used to select the correct method so that CarWasher.Wash(Car) will be called (making the code work correctly and staying intuitive).
Separate data structures and operations
The other benefit and requirement is that it can separate the data structures from the operations. This can be an advantage because it allows new visitors to be added that have there own operations while it also allows data structures to be added that 'inherit' these operations. It can however be only applied if this seperation can be done / makes sense. The classes that perform the operations (the visitors) do not know the structure of the data structures nor do they have to know that which makes code more maintainable and reusable. When applied for this reason the visitors have operations for the different elements in the data structures.
Say you have different data structures and they all consist of elements of class Item. The structures can be lists, stacks, trees, queues etc.
You can then implement visitors that in this case will have the following method:
Visit(Item)
The data structures need to accept visitors and then call the Visit method for each Item.
This way you can implement all kinds of visitors and you can still add new data structures as long as they consist of elements of type Item.
For more specific data structures with additional elements (e.g. a Node) you might consider a specific visitor (NodeVisitor) that inherits from your conventional Visitor and have your new data structures accept that visitor (Accept(NodeVisitor)). The new visitors can be used for the new data structures but also for the old data structures due to inheritence and so you do not need to modify your existing 'interface' (the super class in this case).
In my personal opinion, the visitor pattern is only useful if the interface you want implemented is rather static and doesn't change a lot, while you want to give anyone a chance to implement their own functionality.
Note that you can avoid changing everything every time you add a new method by creating a new interface instead of modifying the old one - then you just have to have some logic handling the case when the visitor doesn't implement all the interfaces.
Basically, the benefit is that it allows you to choose the correct method to call at runtime, rather than at compile time - and the available methods are actually extensible.
For more info, have a look at this article - http://rgomes-info.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-better-implementation-of-visitor.html
By experience, I would say that "Adding a new type to the type hierarchy requires changes to all visitors" is an advantage. Because it definitely forces you to consider the new type added in ALL places where you did some type-specific stuff. It prevents you from forgetting one....
This is an old question but i would like to answer.
The visitor pattern is useful mostly when you have a composite pattern in place in which you build a tree of objects and such tree arrangement is unpredictable.
Type checking may be one thing that a visitor can do, but say you want to build an expression based on a tree that can vary its form according to a user input or something like that, a visitor would be an effective way for you to validate the tree, or build a complex object according to the items found on the tree.
The visitor may also carry an object that does something on each node it may find on that tree. this visitor may be a composite itself chaining lots of operations on each node, or it can carry a mediator object to mediate operations or dispatch events on each node.
You imagination is the limit of all this. you can filter a collection, build an abstract syntax tree out of an complete tree, parse a string, validate a collection of things, etc.
How do I make PhpStorm suggest input variables ?
In Java/C# and the like (with VS/Eclipse), when I have a function that receives enum-input-variable, like:
void func(SomeEnum var);
Whenever I type func(, the editor kindly suggests all the available enums (of type SomeEnum). I look for this same functionality in PHP, when I have a predefined set of input options (like DB's tables).
Maybe with the use of Intellilang or these # tags (PHPDocs ?) I can predefine such list ?
Currently you cannot limit the possible options for code completion in this regard: PHP simply has no such "thing" similar to Enum. The only limitation you can do is limit by expected parameter type (e.g. int variable will not be offered when parameter expects an array).
I think this will be the correct ticket to look for: http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/WI-854 and maybe http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/WI-3623
Kind of related (for array indexes completion): http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/WI-3423
I'm looking for a listing of all MySQL data types and the available settings for each option for each data type.
After a bit of googling I couldn't find anything quite like that.
here you can find a quick summary of mysql data types, with range, attributes and default value
For completeness' sake, don't forget the MySQL documentation.
Although the list is broken across multiple pages, often with a lot of commentary in between, it's a useful resource when you need to check some aspect of a particular type. There are also overviews of the basic types, but again, there's a lot of cruft mixed in with it.
if anyone ever needs them as a json array:
"[\"TINYINT[(M)]\", \"SMALLINT[(M)]\", \"MEDIUMINT[(M)]\", \"INT[(M)]\", \"BIGINT[(M)]\", \"FLOAT(p)\", \"FLOAT[(M,D)]\", \"DOUBLE[(M,D)]\", \"DECIMAL[(M,[D])]\", \"BIT[(M)]\", \"CHAR[(M)]\", \"VARCHAR(M)\", \"TINYTEXT\", \"TEXT\", \"MEDIUMTEXT\", \"LONGTEXT\", \"BINARY[(M)]\", \"VARBINARY(M)\", \"TINYBLOB\", \"BLOB\", \"MEDIUMBLOB\", \"LONGBLOB\", \"ENUM(\\\"A1\\\",\\\"A2\\\",...)\", \"SET(\\\"A1\\\",\\\"A2\\\",...)\", \"DATE\", \"DATETIME\", \"TIME\", \"TIMESTAMP\", \"YEAR\"]"
Do you often see in API documentation (as in 'javadoc of public functions' for example) the description of "value limits" as well as the classic documentation ?
Note: I am not talking about comments within the code
By "value limits", I mean:
does a parameter can support a null value (or an empty String, or...) ?
does a 'return value' can be null or is guaranteed to never be null (or can be "empty", or...) ?
Sample:
What I often see (without having access to source code) is:
/**
* Get all readers name for this current Report. <br />
* <b>Warning</b>The Report must have been published first.
* #param aReaderNameRegexp filter in order to return only reader matching the regexp
* #return array of reader names
*/
String[] getReaderNames(final String aReaderNameRegexp);
What I like to see would be:
/**
* Get all readers name for this current Report. <br />
* <b>Warning</b>The Report must have been published first.
* #param aReaderNameRegexp filter in order to return only reader matching the regexp
* (can be null or empty)
* #return array of reader names
* (null if Report has not yet been published,
* empty array if no reader match criteria,
* reader names array matching regexp, or all readers if regexp is null or empty)
*/
String[] getReaderNames(final String aReaderNameRegexp);
My point is:
When I use a library with a getReaderNames() function in it, I often do not even need to read the API documentation to guess what it does. But I need to be sure how to use it.
My only concern when I want to use this function is: what should I expect in term of parameters and return values ? That is all I need to know to safely setup my parameters and safely test the return value, yet I almost never see that kind of information in API documentation...
Edit:
This can influence the usage or not for checked or unchecked exceptions.
What do you think ? value limits and API, do they belong together or not ?
I think they can belong together but don't necessarily have to belong together. In your scenario, it seems like it makes sense that the limits are documented in such a way that they appear in the generated API documentation and intellisense (if the language/IDE support it).
I think it does depend on the language as well. For example, Ada has a native data type that is a "restricted integer", where you define an integer variable and explicitly indicate that it will only (and always) be within a certain numeric range. In that case, the datatype itself indicates the restriction. It should still be visible and discoverable through the API documentation and intellisense, but wouldn't be something that a developer has to specify in the comments.
However, languages like Java and C# don't have this type of restricted integer, so the developer would have to specify it in the comments if it were information that should become part of the public documentation.
I think those kinds of boundary conditions most definitely belong in the API. However, I would (and often do) go a step further and indicate WHAT those null values mean. Either I indicate it will throw an exception, or I explain what the expected results are when the boundary value is passed in.
It's hard to remember to always do this, but it's a good thing for users of your class. It's also difficult to maintain it if the contract the method presents changes (like null values are changed to no be allowed)... you have to be diligent also to update the docs when you change the semantics of the method.
Question 1
Do you often see in API documentation (as in 'javadoc of public functions' for example) the description of "value limits" as well as the classic documentation?
Almost never.
Question 2
My only concern when I want to use this function is: what should I expect in term of parameters and return values ? That is all I need to know to safely setup my parameters and safely test the return value, yet I almost never see that kind of information in API documentation...
If I used a function not properly I would expect a RuntimeException thrown by the method or a RuntimeException in another (sometimes very far) part of the program.
Comments like #param aReaderNameRegexp filter in order to ... (can be null or empty) seems to me a way to implement Design by Contract in a human-being language inside Javadoc.
Using Javadoc to enforce Design by Contract was used by iContract, now resurrected into JcontractS, that let you specify invariants, preconditions, postconditions, in more formalized way compared to the human-being language.
Question 3
This can influence the usage or not for checked or unchecked exceptions.
What do you think ? value limits and API, do they belong together or not ?
Java language doesn't have a Design by Contract feature, so you might be tempted to use Execption but I agree with you about the fact that you have to be aware about When to choose checked and unchecked exceptions. Probably you might use unchecked IllegalArgumentException, IllegalStateException, or you might use unit testing, but the major problem is how to communicate to other programmers that such code is about Design By Contract and should be considered as a contract before changing it too lightly.
I think they do, and have always placed comments in the header files (c++) arcordingly.
In addition to valid input/output/return comments, I also note which exceptions are likly to be thrown by the function (since I often want to use the return value for...well returning a value, I prefer exceptions over error codes)
//File:
// Should be a path to the teexture file to load, if it is not a full path (eg "c:\example.png") it will attempt to find the file usign the paths provided by the DataSearchPath list
//Return: The pointer to a Texture instance is returned, in the event of an error, an exception is thrown. When you are finished with the texture you chould call the Free() method.
//Exceptions:
//except::FileNotFound
//except::InvalidFile
//except::InvalidParams
//except::CreationFailed
Texture *GetTexture(const std::string &File);
#Fire Lancer: Right! I forgot about exception, but I would like to see them mentioned, especially the unchecked 'runtime' exception that this public method could throw
#Mike Stone:
you have to be diligent also to update the docs when you change the semantics of the method.
Mmmm I sure hope that the public API documentation is at the very least updated whenever a change -- that affects the contract of the function -- takes place. If not, those API documentations could be drop altogether.
To add food to yours thoughts (and go with #Scott Dorman), I just stumble upon the future of java7 annotations
What does that means ? That certain 'boundary conditions', rather than being in the documentation, should be better off in the API itself, and automatically used, at compilation time, with appropriate 'assert' generated code.
That way, if a '#CheckForNull' is in the API, the writer of the function might get away with not even documenting it! And if the semantic change, its API will reflect that change (like 'no more #CheckForNull' for instance)
That kind of approach suggests that documentation, for 'boundary conditions', is an extra bonus rather than a mandatory practice.
However, that does not cover the special values of the return object of a function. For that, a complete documentation is still needed.