Is it possible?:
//...
local:MvxBind="Text Format('{0} {1}', Stock, #string/in_stock)"/>
//...
I want to construct a text value using my property from ViewModel and string resource from strings.xml, but the example above does not work.
AFAIK it is not directly possible to bind to an Android string.
Working with Xamarin and Mvx you should use resx files to support internationalization (i18n).
You can easily access the resx file from a binding using an indexer on your ViewModel:
public abstract class BaseViewModel : MvxViewModel
{
public string this[string key] => Strings.ResourceManager.GetString(key);
}
Then in your View you can use it like:
local:MvxBind="Text Format('{0} {1}', Stock, [InStock])"
There is another way to bind strings in resx files that is using the ResxLocalization plugin and even though it does not support Format yet you can workaround it (you can check this issue Feature request: Combine MvxLang with Format to keep track of this)
Basically, you create your Strings.resx file in your PCL/NetStandard/Shared project and register it:
Mvx.RegisterSingleton(new MvxResxTextProvider(Strings.ResourceManager));
Then in your base view model you need to implement this property so your views and viewmodels have access to i18n:
public IMvxLanguageBinder TextSource => new MvxLanguageBinder("", GetType().Name);
Finally in your view you can call it using:
local:MvxLang="Text InStock"
Pay attention that it is using MvxLang instead of MvxBind. BTW you can use both of them but if you use Text in MvxLang then don't use it in MvxBind because problems will arise.
Finally you can combine the plugin with the indexer to lower the coupling between the ViewModel and the resx files and workaround the support of Format in the binding like this (taken from the issue abovementioned):
public abstract class BaseViewModel : MvxViewModel
{
private IMvxTextProvider _textProvider;
public BaseViewModel(IMvxTextProvider textProvider)
{
_textProvider = textProvider;
}
public string this[string key] => _textProvider.GetText("", "", key);
}
and in your view (because of Format we cannot use MvxLang here):
local:MvxBind="Text Format('{0} {1}', Stock, [InStock])"
HIH
Related
Say we have:
class MyClass {
myProperty: string
}
Is there any built in function or easy way to get JSON like this?:
{
"myProperty": "string"
}
EDIT: My end goal is I want to dynamically print typed class definitions to a web view, in some kind of structured object syntax like JSON. I'm trying to make a server API that will return the schema for various custom classes - for example http://myserver.com/MyClass should return MyClass's properties and their types as a JSON string or other structured representation.
Evert is correct, however a workaround can look like this
class MyClass {
myProperty: string = 'string'
}
JSON.stringify(new MyClass) // shows what you want
In other words, setting a default property value lets TS compile properties to JS
If the above solution is not acceptable, then I would suggest you parsing TS files with your classes with https://dsherret.github.io/ts-simple-ast/.
Typescript class properties exist at build-time only. They are removed from your source after compiling to .js. As such, there is no run-time way to get to the class properties.
Your code snippet compiles to:
var MyClass = /** #class */ (function () {
function MyClass() {
}
return MyClass;
}());
As you can see, the property disappeared.
Based on your update, I had this exact problem. This is how I solved it.
My JSON-based API uses json-schema across the board for type validation, and also exposes these schemas for clients to re-use.
I used an npm package to automatically convert json-schema to Typescript.
This works brilliantly.
I'm trying to have two Web API methods in my controller. One for when GET is called with a MyViewModel object in the header, and one without.
MyController.cs:
[Produces("application/json")]
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class MyController : Controller
{
[HttpGet]
public IEnumerable<UserModel> Get()
{
// ...
}
[HttpGet]
public IEnumerable<UserModel> Get(MyViewModel viewModel)
{
// ...
}
}
But browsing to the route address in Chrome without passing any MyViewModel gives me this error:
AmbiguousActionException: Multiple actions matched. The following
actions matched route data and had all constraints satisfied:
MyController.Get (MyProject)
MyController.Get (MyProject)
If I comment out the parameterless method and put a break point in the parameterized function and browse to the api URL, it looks like rather than the viewModel being null like I expected, it appears to be a new MyViewModel object made with a parameterless constructor. Seems like it may be relevant to my problem.
I'm running on Microsoft.AspNetCore v1.1.2 and Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc v1.1.3.
Add attribute routing to one of them.
For example:
[HttpGet("/myaction")]
public IEnumerable<UserModel> Get(MyViewModel viewModel)
{
// ...
}
Or add it to all of them. MVC can't distinguish two methods because viewModel can be null, and doesn't know if it should match first get action or another.
One for when GET is called with a MyViewModel object in the header, and one without.
Model Binding in ASP.NET Core by default uses query parameters as the source for model population, not headers. If you need to fill MyViewModel from the header, use [FromHeader] attribute:
public IEnumerable<UserModel> Get([FromHeader] MyViewModel viewModel)
ASP.NET Core routing implementation is not using headers for routing resolving. As you are using attribute routing, as #Vlado said, you need to use different Route Name for disambiguating actions.
This is a simplified version of the problem i am solving but conceptually equivalent.
This project is using castle windsor and I am trying to keep all factories in the container.
I have a single object that represents data parsed from a text file. After parsing this file I need to write a new text file with 2 line based on data in the original object.
lets say the text file is
Some Person, Work Phone, Mobil Phone
this gets parsed into
public class Person
{
public string Name{get;set;}
public stirng WorkPhone {get;set;}
public stirng MobilPhone {get;set;}
}
Now this is a simplified example so keep that in mind please. The next step is to creat new object instances that represent each line we will write to the text file
public interface IFileEntry
{
string Name{get;set;}
string Number{get;set;}
}
public class PersonWorkPhoneEntry : IFileEntry
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Number{get;set;}
public override ToString(){....}
}
public class PersonMobilPhoneEntry: IFileEntry
{
public string Name{get;set;}
public string Number{get;set;}
public override ToString(){....}
}
so being that we are using Castle for this lets make a factory
public interface IFileEntryFactory
{
IFileEntry Create(string entryType, stirng Name, string Number
}
I have created my own implementation for the DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector and install that for this factory only.
public class FileEntryComponentSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override string GetComponentName(System.Reflection.MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
if (method.Name == "Create" && arguments.length == 3)
{
return (string)arguments[0];
}
return base.GetComponentName(method, arguments);
}
}
This works,
var workEntry = _factory.Create("PersonWorkPhoneEntry", person.Name, person.WorkPhone)
var mobilEntry = _factory.Create("PersonMobilPhoneEntry", person.Name, person.WorkPhone)
//then write the tostring to a text file
Sorry for the long setup but i think its needed. What I am trying to do Is
public interface IFileEntryFactory
{
IFileEntry Create(string entryType, stirng Name, string Number
IFileEntry[] Create(Person person)
}
var entries = _factory.Create(person);
foreach(var e in entries)
///write to text file.
I have been digging all over for a solution like this with no results.
What seems to be a possible solution taking the example shown here (Castle Windsor Typed Factory Facility with generics)
Im currently working on implementing something like this now, not sure if this is the right way to solve this problem.
The questions:
are there any other ways to have the factory return the array of
needed objects
what is the best practice for solving something like
this
any examples and reading for advanced factories
It is possible to make a Factory return to you an array of objects which are already registered in the container. Here is an example
container.Register(Component.For<IMyStuffProvider>().AsFactory()) // registration
public interface IStuffProvider
{
IEnumerable<IMyStuff> GetAllStuff();
void Release(IMyStuff stuff);
}
This code makes possible that every registered implementation of IMyStuff gets returned by the factory.
But I think that your problem is different : you are using the factory for the wrong purpose. TypedFactory is to get instances of objects that are already registered in the container during app start and not to manipulate files. Their purpose is to solve problems regarding dependencies.
If you are parsing a csv/txt into objects and then writing some of the rows back into another csv/txt you have to make
IFileEntryManager (with an implementation) with a methods like DeserializeFileToObjects, WriteObjectsToFile, etc.
IFileEntryManagerFactory to create and return IFileEntryManager. ( Castle typed factory here :) )
Now inject your IFileEntryManagerFactory in your ctor of the class that needs to serialize/deserialize text files and and use it to get your FileEntryManager which in turn will act upon your text files.
If you have different objects like Person, Company, Employee... etc. and you want to handle them with generic manipulator - it is ok. The best way is to implement a Generic Repository. Lets say ICsvRepository<T>. Just search for 'Generic Rpository in c#' and ignore that fact that most of the implementation examples are with EntityFramework as a persistence store. Behind the interface you can make it read/write to csv rather than to DB.
Lets generalize it. If you have to deal with resources - files, sql, blobs, tables, message bus or whatever resource persistent/non persistent which comes in or goes out of your application you have to manipulate it through an abstraction IMyResourceManager with its corresponding manipulation methods. If you have several implementations of IMyResourceManager and you want to decide during runtime which implementation you want then you have to make IMyResourceManagerFactory with a component selector or factory method and place your differentiation logic there.
That is why I think you do not need a TypedFactory for text file read/write but a pure ITextFileManipulator which you have to register in the container and get it through constructor. You may need a typed factory if you go for ICsvRepository<T> where T is your Person class. Inside the implementation of ICsvRepository<T> you will need ICsvFileManipulator.
Using this abstract class:
#JsonTypeInfo(use = Id.NAME, include = As.PROPERTY, property = "type")
#JsonSubTypes({ #JsonSubTypes.Type(value = PostingTaskInstanceDto.class, name = "TI") })
public abstract class BasePostingDto {}
and this inherited class:
public class PostingTaskInstanceDto extends BasePostingDto {}
I get correct serialization for a single object. This works, using Spring-MVC:
#RequestMapping("/{id}")
#ResponseBody
public BasePostingDto findById(#PathVariable("id") Long id) {
return createDto(postingService.findById(id));
}
But if I retrieve a List of BasePostingDto from the remote controller, the type property is missing:
#RequestMapping("/by-user/all")
#ResponseBody
public List<BasePostingDto> findByUser() {
return createDtoList(postingService.findByUser(AuthUtils.getUser()));
}
Why is this and how can I force the type property?
Update: the type property is also included if I change List<BasePostingDto> to BasePostingDto[], however I would prefer to go with the List.
It sounds like the framework you are using (and which uses Jackson under the hood) is not passing full generics-aware type information.
I don't know how that can be fixed (it is problem with integration by framework, and not something Jackson can address), but the usual work around is for you to use sub-class of List:
public class PostingDtoList extends List<BasePostingDto> { }
and use that in signature, instead of generic type. This solves the issue because then the generic type signature is retained (since it is stored in super type declaration, and accessible via type-erased PostingDtoList class!).
In generally I think it is best to avoid using generic List and Map types as root type (and instead use POJO); partly because of problems issued (there are bigger problems when using XML for example). But it can be made to work if need be.
A database application that I'm currently working on, stores all sorts of settings in the database. Most of those settings are there to customize certain business rules, but there's also some other stuff in there.
The app contains objects that specifically do a certain task, e.g., a certain complicated calculation. Those non-UI objects are unit-tested, but also need access to lots of those global settings. The way we've implemented this right now, is by giving the objects properties that are filled by the Application Controller at runtime. When testing, we create the objects in the test and fill in values for testing (not from the database).
This works better, in any case much better than having all those objects need some global Settings object --- that of course effectively makes unit testing impossible :) Disadvantage can be that you sometimes need to set a dozen of properties, or that you need to let those properties 'percolate' into sub-objects.
So the general question is: how do you provide access to global application settings in your projects, without the need for global variables, while still being able to unit test your code? This must be a problem that's been solved 100's of times...
(Note: I'm not too much of an experienced programmer, as you'll have noticed; but I love to learn! And of course, I've already done research into this topic, but I'm really looking for some first-hand experiences)
You could use Martin Fowlers ServiceLocator pattern. In php it could look like this:
class ServiceLocator {
private static $soleInstance;
private $globalSettings;
public static function load($locator) {
self::$soleInstance = $locator;
}
public static function globalSettings() {
if (!isset(self::$soleInstance->globalSettings)) {
self::$soleInstance->setGlobalSettings(new GlobalSettings());
}
return self::$soleInstance->globalSettings;
}
}
Your production code then initializes the service locator like this:
ServiceLocator::load(new ServiceLocator());
In your test-code, you insert your mock-settings like this:
ServiceLocator s = new ServiceLocator();
s->setGlobalSettings(new MockGlobalSettings());
ServiceLocator::load(s);
It's a repository for singletons that can be exchanged for testing purposes.
I like to model my configuration access off of the Service Locator pattern. This gives me a single point to get any configuration value that I need and by putting it outside the application in a separate library, it allows reuse and testability. Here is some sample code, I am not sure what language you are using, but I wrote it in C#.
First I create a generic class that will models my ConfigurationItem.
public class ConfigurationItem<T>
{
private T item;
public ConfigurationItem(T item)
{
this.item = item;
}
public T GetValue()
{
return item;
}
}
Then I create a class that exposes public static readonly variables for the configuration item. Here I am just reading the ConnectionStringSettings from a config file, which is just xml. Of course for more items, you can read the values from any source.
public class ConfigurationItems
{
public static ConfigurationItem<ConnectionStringSettings> ConnectionSettings = new ConfigurationItem<ConnectionStringSettings>(RetrieveConnectionString());
private static ConnectionStringSettings RetrieveConnectionString()
{
// In .Net, we store our connection string in the application/web config file.
// We can access those values through the ConfigurationManager class.
return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ConnectionKey"]];
}
}
Then when I need a ConfigurationItem for use, I call it like this:
ConfigurationItems.ConnectionSettings.GetValue();
And it will return me a type safe value, which I can then cache or do whatever I want with.
Here's a sample test:
[TestFixture]
public class ConfigurationItemsTest
{
[Test]
public void ShouldBeAbleToAccessConnectionStringSettings()
{
ConnectionStringSettings item = ConfigurationItems.ConnectionSettings.GetValue();
Assert.IsNotNull(item);
}
}
Hope this helps.
Usually this is handled by an ini file or XML configuration file. Then you just have a class that reads the setting when neeed.
.NET has this built in with the ConfigurationManager classes, but it's quite easy to implement, just read text files, or load XML into DOM or parse them by hand in code.
Having config files in the database is ok, but it does tie you to the database, and creates an extra dependancy for your app that ini/xml files solve.
I did this:
public class MySettings
{
public static double Setting1
{ get { return SettingsCache.Instance.GetDouble("Setting1"); } }
public static string Setting2
{ get { return SettingsCache.Instance.GetString("Setting2"); } }
}
I put this in a separate infrastructure module to remove any issues with circular dependencies.
Doing this I am not tied to any specific configuration method, and have no strings running havoc in my applications code.