I'm using re-frame with spec to validate app-db, much like in the todomvc example.
When a user makes an invalid entry, I'm using s/explain-data (in a re-frame interceptor) to return a problems map naming the :predicate which caused validation failure. This predicate is a symbol like project.db/validation-function.
My validation function has metadata which is accessible from the repl using:
(meta #'project.db/validation-function)
The function definition (in the project.db namespace) looks like this:
(defn validation-function
"docstring..."
{:error-message "error message"}
[param]
(function-body...)
The problem is I can't work out how to retrieve the metadata dynamically (working in project.events namespace), for example:
(let [explain-data (s/explain-data spec db)
pred (->> (:cljs.spec.alpha/problems explain-data) first :pred)
msg (what-goes-here? pred)]
msg)
I've tried the following things in place of what-goes-here?:
symbol? gives true
str gives "project.db/validation-function"
meta gives nil
var gives a compile-time error "Unable to resolve var: p1__46744# in this context"
I think the problem is that I'm getting a symbol, but I need the var it refers to, which is where the metadata lives.
I've tried using a macro, but don't really know what I'm doing. This is the closest discussion I could find, but I couldn't work it out.
Help!
In general, you can't do this because vars are not reified in ClojureScript.
From https://clojurescript.org/about/differences#_special_forms :
var notes
Vars are not reified at runtime. When the compiler encounters the var special form it emits a Var instance reflecting compile time metadata. (This satisfies many common static use cases.)
At the REPL, when you evaluate
(meta #'project.db/validation-function)
this is the same as
(meta (var project.db/validation-function))
and when (var project.db/validation-function) is compiled, JavaScript code is emitted to create a cljs.core/Var instance that contains, among other things, the data that you can obtain using meta. If you are curious, the relevant analyzer and compiler code is instructive.
So, if (var project.db/validation-function) (or the reader equivalent #'project.db/validation-function) doesn't exist anywhere in your source code (or indirectly via the use of something like ns-publics) this data won't be available at runtime.
The omission of var reification is a good thing when optimizing for code size. If you enable the :repl-verbose REPL option, you will see that the expression (var project.db/validation-function) emits a significant amount of JavaScript code.
When working with defs at the REPL, the compiler carries sufficient analysis metadata, and things are done—like having evaluations of def forms return the var rather than the value—in the name of constructing an illusion that you are working with reified Clojure vars. But this illusion intentionally evaporates when producing code for production delivery, preserving only essential runtime behavior.
edit: sorry I didn't see that var didn't work for you. Still working on it...
You need to surround the symbol project.db/validation-function with var. This will resolve the symbol to a var.
So what-goes-here? should be
(defn what-goes-here? [pred]
(var pred))
Related
I'm attempting to use a string saved in a variable to call a function like so:
(defn update-product-list [] "Test")
(defn handle-state-change [action]
((resolve (symbol action))))
(handle-state-change "update-product-list")
However, this gives me the following error: Assert failed: Argument to resolve must be a quoted symbol
I've also tried changing the above line to:
((resolve (quote (symbol action))))
But this still gives an error. I also tried changing it just to:
((resolve 'action))
But this gives a different error I don't quite understand: js/action is shadowed by a local. I don't want to override the function just call it. Not sure where I'm going wrong. I've looked at a few examples, but can't see to pin it down.
ClojureScript supports :advanced optimization, in which Google Closure Compiler will rename, inline, or eliminate (unused) functions in order to implement minification. In short, the name of the function you want to look up will, in general, simply no longer exist under :advanced.
Because of this, ClojureScript's resolve is a compile-time facility (a macro requiring a literal quoted symbol).
If you are using :simple or self-hosted ClojureScript, more options are available to you because the support needed persists into runtime. For example Planck has a planck.core/resolve that behave's like Clojure's resolve. A similar approach is possible in Lumo, and similar facilities can be fashioned if using :simple.
In general though, given :advanced, if you need to map strings to a set of functions, you need to somehow arrange to have a static mapping constructed at compile time to support this (the set of functions must be known a priori, at compile time).
If you have a namespace (the name of which is statically known at compile time) which defines functions that need to be dynamically called via strings, you could consider making use of ns-publics:
cljs.user=> (ns foo.core)
foo.core=> (defn square [x] (* x x))
#'foo.core/square
foo.core=> (in-ns 'cljs.user)
nil
cljs.user=> (when-some [fn-var ((ns-publics 'foo.core) (symbol "square"))]
(fn-var 3))
9
This will work under :advanced. The mapping constructed by ns-publics is static; built at compile-time. If you have multiple namespaces that need such treatment, you could merge several calls to ns-publics to build a larger map.
The advantage of this approach is that the code involved is pretty short and requires little maintenance. The disadvantage is that it dumps all of the public vars of the namespace (foo.core in this example) into your generated code (and the generated code for vars is somewhat verbose). Another disadvantage is that you need to statically know the namespace(s) involved at compile time.
If you need to further minimize generated code size, you could just build / maintain a simple static map from string to function value as in
(def fns {"square" foo.core/square})
and use it appropriately, keeping it up to date as your codebase evolves.
Another option would be to mark the functions that you need to access using ^:export meta, and then to call those functions using JavaScript interop. For example if you define the function this way
(defn ^:export square [x] (* x x))
then you can use strings / interop to lookup the function and call it at runtime. Here's an example:
((goog.object/getValueByKeys js/window #js ["foo" "core" "square"]) 3)
The use of ^:export and :advanced is covered here. If you know that you are using :simple or less, then you can simply use JavaScript interop to call the functions of interest, without needn't to use ^:export.
Note that there is no general solution that would let you look up a function by name at runtime under :advanced without somehow putting some aspect of that function into your code at compile time. (In fact, if a function is not referenced in a way that Google Closure Compiler can statically, see, the function implementation will be completely eliminated as dead code.) In the above, ns-publics grabs all the vars for a namespace at compile time, rolling your own lookup map sets up static code to refer to the function value, and using ^:export statically arranges to make the name of the function persist into runtime.
You need to use it like this:
((resolve 'inc) 5)) => 6
or, deconstructed a bit:
(let [the-fn (resolve 'inc)]
(the-fn 7))
=> 8
If you have the function name as a string, use the symbol function to convert from string => symbol (from clojuredocs.org):
user=> ((-> "first" symbol resolve) [1 2 3])
1
And, never forget the Clojure CheatSheet!
I have Object parsed from JSON (haxe.Json.parse()) and I need to iterate over it.
I already tried to cast this object to Array<Dynamic>:
var data:String='{"data":{"0":0,"1":1},"method":"test"}';
var res:{method:String,data:Array<Dynamic>} = haxe.Json.parse(data);
for (n in res.data)
trace('aa')
There is no Can't iterate dynamic exception, just not working (iterating).
I completley don't understand why in Haxe iterating procedure is so difficult.
For the sake of posting a complete answer, and in case other people are wondering
In your first example, you've told the compiler that "res" contains two properties - one called "method" (which is a String) and one called "data" (which is Array). Now the JSON you're using doesn't actually have an Array<Dynamic>, it just has a dynamic object. An Array would look like: "data":[0,1].
So, assuming you meant for the JSON to have data as a Dynamic object, here is how you loop over it, using Reflect (as you mentioned in the comments):
var data:String='{"data":{"0":0,"1":1},"method":"test"}';
var res = haxe.Json.parse(data);
for (n in Reflect.fields(res.data))
trace(Reflect.field(res.data, n));
Note here we don't have to specify the type of "res", since we're using Reflection just leaving it as Dynamic will be fine.
Now, if your JSON actually contains an Array, the code might look like this:
var data:String='{"data":[0,1],"method":"test"}';
var res:{method:String,data:Array<Int>} = haxe.Json.parse(data);
for (n in res.data)
trace(n);
Here you use explicit typing to tell the compiler that res.data is an Array (and this time it actually is), and it can loop over it normally.
The reason you didn't get an error at compile-time is because the compiler thought there was genuinely going to be an array there, as you told it there was. At runtime, whether or not it throws an exception probably depends on the target... but you probably want to stay out of that anyway :)
Demo of both styles of code: http://try.haxe.org/#772A2
I'm an architect from a strong JavaScript background, but I did some .NET and Java in the past.
However, I wanted to put a hand on ActionScript3, which I was promised that is very related to JavaScript.
As a startup project I took on myself to try port to ActionScript3 one of my favorite assertion utils - should.js - that makes your test codes really pleasant to read.
Updated: 2013-02-19
I saw I confuse with my abstract speaking, so I replaced some of the post with the concrete question in mind.
Here's the full picture:
Consider the following JavaScript code:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'should'
, { set: function(){}
, get:
function(){
return new Assertion(Object(this).valueOf());
}
, configurable: true
, enumerable : false
}
);
That is part of the implementation of the JavaScript module Should. The other part is a definition of a the class Assertion, that is constructed with a value, and implements a wide and nice set of assertion methods, against that value. Methods like like
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equals(expectedValue1)
o.moreThan(expectedValue2)
o.contains(expectedValue3)
and aliases to keep english grammer
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equal(expectedValue1)
o.contain(expectedValue3)
and aliases for the lazy sharpshooters, like
o.eql(expectedValue)
o.gt(expectedValue) //greater then
o.gte(...) //greater then or equal
//and so on...
and some connectors that just return this, (which is the instance of Assertion constructed with the test value) like
o.be
o.and
What does it give you?
A test code that looks like this:
var person = getPerson();
Should.exist(person); //that's a static call, and that's easy
//but these are a member calls:
person.should.have("name","age","address","friends");
person.name.should.equal("John");
person.age
.should
.be.number()
.and.be.between(20,30);
person.address
.should
.be.string().and
.startWith("\d").and
.endWith(" st.")
//or even
.and.match(/^[0-9]{1,9}\s+[A-Z][a-z0-9 ]* st\.$/);
person.friends
.should
.be.array().and
.be.between(3,5).and
.containOnlyType(String);
Isn't that wonderful? it's plain English!
You could argue about aesthetics of indentation, where to put the and, and if they are at all necessary, but besides that - anybody can read or write it:
Once you took the 'should' attribute that exists on every object but does not spoil map iterations - you can go on chaining whatever you have to claim regarding the value you started from.
It could have more nifty iteration tools, reflection utilities, be augmented with test functions relevant for your object model, and so on and so forth, but lets just get over the first step :)
But for that, you need every object in the system to feature a non-enumerable smart property called should that in it's getter function returns an Assertion object constructed with the this as the tested value.
(you ain't seen nothing yet - wait to see the beautiful rejection messages it gives! Yummie!!
So yea - I would happily sacrifice the option to call an attribute "should"... and will happily give up intelisense as well - at least as long as it's plain English)
So, in comments, bfavaretto gave us the first step - we know how to prevent enumeration of an attribute - great & thanks!!
Now, can we make it a getter-attribute who's function can access the this?
When I'm done I'm going to put it in some public repo licensed under MIT, for all of us to have fun with :)
Help anybody?
You example is actually 90% correct - but define it like actionscript, not like javascript!
You can still define prototypes in AS3 and they will still work just like prototypes in AS2. The only difference in AS3 is the compiler. AVM2 for some reason does not cast prototypes to native classes (although I didn't test custom classes).
The Prototype Trick: Cast the class as an object.
Eg: if you create:
Array.prototype.random = function():void{}
Then create the object:
var myProtoArray:Array = new Array;
2 things will happen:
myProtoArray.random() //ERROR - this will fail, AVM2 did not map the prototype to Array
but
Object(myProtoArray).random() //WORKS
random() was cast to the Object class, then mapped to Array - I have no idea why!
Hope this helps, cheers.
I confess I'm not keenly familiar with how Javascript works, but if I'm understanding defineProperties purpose correctly, it is a runtime dictation of not just what a property should be, but also the associated namespace to which it belongs (or at least what AS3 considers a namespace).
Class properties are either predefined & only modifiable via custom get() set() functions, or dynamic. Once compiled, their namespace cannot be changed (to my knowledge), so any non-private property is implicitly enumerable, and modifiable whether or not you've written getter/setters (ie: foo.a = value). According to Adobe...
Properties that you create are enumerable, but built-in properties are
generally not enumerable.
That said, you can get a complete list of properties from a class by using describeType. Quite an exhaustive amount of info can be gleaned this way, and I suspect should suit your needs if you wanted to port Mozilla's recreated defineProperties example. Below is an example printing out only property values.
function showProps(obj:*):void {
var desc:XML= describeType(obj);
// public vars
for each (var n:XML in desc.variable){
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
}
// getters
for each (n in desc.accessor){
try {
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
} catch (error:Error) {
trace("Unable to read write-only property.");
}
}
}
I hope this helps, but I'm certain I don't fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. If you could elaborate, that'd be appreciated.
Ok, guys, thanks for all the help, 22+
I'll give a summary for the people that are interested in the original question, and after that - I'll show you the outcome of my efforts.
The challange was made of two parts:
1 - prevent the augmented (=added on runtime) property from being enumerated
To the first part - thanks to #bfavaretto, commented on the question level - Object.setPropertyIsEnumerable - did the trick great.
2 - make the augmented property operate a getter function with access to the this so it can use it on the constructor of the returned value.
About this second part - Basically - I could not find a way to augment (=add) a property getter to a prototype, and have it operate on instances that enjoy it's API through the inheritance tree.
Anyway, within these limits - here's the outcome:
https://github.com/osher/should.as
Not exact porting because of the platform differences,
and I still have some methods to catch up with the original should.js (like the HTTP testing methods)
but close enough.
The main difference is that instead
var o:Object =
{ name : "Radagast"
, color: "Brown"
}
o.should.have.properties("name","color")
.and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should.not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should.equal("Brown");
you have to go
o.should().have.properties("name","color")
and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should().not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should().equal("Brown");
(the brackets - no getter possible - so the should attribute is a method, and you have to invoke it yourself)
Now if you get stuck and need help from the intellisense, you have to do this:
var should:tdd.Should = o.color.should();
should. <ctrl+space>
which kind'a takes the sting out, but for a peek in the intelisense - it helps
Important
One more thing - you have to force the static constructor of Should as soon in execution as you can,
for example, I do it here:
[Suite]
[RunWith("org.flexunit.runners.Suite")]
public class my_awsome_test_suite
{
//forces the static constructor of tdd.Should
import tdd.Should;
private static var s:Should = new Should();
public var c1:testCase1;
public var c2:testCase2;
public var c3:testCase3;
public var c4:testCase4;
}
I'll probably add some propper README.md later, and more awsome member functions to tdd.Should
Have fun
To iterate over the properties of an Object in AS3 you can use for(var i:String in object) like this:
Object:
var object:Object = {
thing: 1,
stuff: "hats",
another: new Sprite()
};
Loop:
for(var i:String in object)
{
trace(i + ": " + object[i]);
}
Result:
stuff: hats
thing: 1
another: [object Sprite]
The order in which the properties are selected however seems to vary and never matches anything that I can think of such as alphabetical property name, the order in which they were created, etc. In fact if I try it a few different times in different places, the order is completely different.
Is it possible to access the properties in a given order? What is happening here?
I'm posting this as an answer just to compliment BoltClock's answer with some extra insight by looking directly at the flash player source code. We can actually see the AVM code that specifically provides this functionality and it's written in C++. We can see inside ArrayObject.cpp the following code:
// Iterator support - for in, for each
Atom ArrayObject::nextName(int index)
{
AvmAssert(index > 0);
int denseLength = (int)getDenseLength();
if (index <= denseLength)
{
AvmCore *core = this->core();
return core->intToAtom(index-1);
}
else
{
return ScriptObject::nextName (index - denseLength);
}
}
As you can see when there is a legitimate property (object) to return, it is looked up from the ScriptObject class, specifically the nextName() method. If we look at those methods within ScriptObject.cpp:
Atom ScriptObject::nextName(int index)
{
AvmAssert(traits()->needsHashtable());
AvmAssert(index > 0);
InlineHashtable *ht = getTable();
if (uint32_t(index)-1 >= ht->getCapacity()/2)
return nullStringAtom;
const Atom* atoms = ht->getAtoms();
Atom m = ht->removeDontEnumMask(atoms[(index-1)<<1]);
if (AvmCore::isNullOrUndefined(m))
return nullStringAtom;
return m;
}
We can see that indeed, as people have pointed out here that the VM is using a hash table. However in these functions there is a specific index supplied, which would suggest, at first glance, that there must then be specific ordering.
If you dig deeper (I won't post all the code here) there are a whole slew of methods from different classes involved in the for in/for each functionality and one of them is the method ScriptObject::nextNameIndex() which basically pulls up the whole hash table and just starts providing indices to valid objects within the table and increments the original index supplied in the argument, so long as the next value points to a valid object. If I'm right in my interpretation, this would be the cause behind your random lookup and I don't believe there would be any way here to force a standardized/ordered map in these operations.
Sources
For those of you who might want to get the source code for the open source portion of the flash player, you can grab it from the following mercurial repositories (you can download a snapshop in zip like github so you don't have to install mercurial):
http://hg.mozilla.org/tamarin-central - This is the "stable" or "release" repository
http://hg.mozilla.org/tamarin-redux - This is the development branch. The most recent changes to the AVM will be found here. This includes the support for Android and such. Adobe is still updating and open sourcing these parts of the flash player, so it's good current and official stuff.
While I'm at it, this might be of interest as well: http://code.google.com/p/redtamarin/. It's a branched off (and rather mature) version of the AVM and can be used to write server-side actionscript. Neat stuff and has a ton of information that gives insight into the workings of the AVM so I thought I'd include it too.
This behavior is documented (emphasis mine):
The for..in loop iterates through the properties of an object, or the elements of an array. For example, you can use a for..in loop to iterate through the properties of a generic object (object properties are not kept in any particular order, so properties may appear in a seemingly random order)
How the properties are stored and retrieved appears to be an implementation detail, which isn't covered in the documentation. As ToddBFisher mentions in a comment, though, a data structure commonly used to implement associative arrays is the hash table. It's even mentioned in this page about associative arrays in AS3, and if you inspect the AVM code as shown by Ascension Systems, you'll find exactly such an implementation. As described, there is no notion of order or sorting in typical hash tables.
I don't believe there is a way to access the properties in a specific order unless you store that order somehow.
I'm going back to the basics here but in Lua, you can define a table like so:
myTable = {}
myTable [1] = 12
Printing the table reference itself brings back a pointer to it. To access its elements you need to specify an index (i.e. exactly like you would an array)
print(myTable ) --prints pointer
print(myTable[1]) --prints 12
Now functions are a different story. You can define and print a function like so:
myFunc = function() local x = 14 end --Defined function
print(myFunc) --Printed pointer to function
Is there a way to access the body of a defined function. I am trying to put together a small code visualizer and would like to 'seed' a given function with special functions/variables to allow a visualizer to 'hook' itself into the code, I would need to be able to redefine the function either from a variable or a string.
There is no way to get access to body source code of given function in plain Lua. Source code is thrown away after compilation to byte-code.
Note BTW that function may be defined in run-time with loadstring-like facility.
Partial solutions are possible — depending on what you actually want to achieve.
You may get source code position from the debug library — if debug library is enabled and debug symbols are not stripped from the bytecode. After that you may load actual source file and extract code from there.
You may decorate functions you're interested in manually with required metadata. Note that functions in Lua are valid table keys, so you may create a function-to-metadata table. You would want to make this table weak-keyed, so it would not prevent functions from being collected by GC.
If you would need a solution for analyzing Lua code, take a look at Metalua.
Check out Lua Introspective Facilities in the debugging library.
The main introspective function in the
debug library is the debug.getinfo
function. Its first parameter may be a
function or a stack level. When you
call debug.getinfo(foo) for some
function foo, you get a table with
some data about that function. The
table may have the following fields:
The field you would want is func I think.
Using the debug library is your only bet. Using that, you can get either the string (if the function is defined in a chunk that was loaded with 'loadstring') or the name of the file in which the function was defined; together with the line-numbers at which the function definition starts and ends. See the documentation.
Here at my current job we have patched Lua so that it even gives you the column numbers for the start and end of the function, so you can get the function source using that. The patch is not very difficult to reproduce, but I don't think I'll be allowed to post it here :-(
You could accomplish this by creating an environment for each function (see setfenv) and using global (versus local) variables. Variables created in the function would then appear in the environment table after the function is executed.
env = {}
myFunc = function() x = 14 end
setfenv(myFunc, env)
myFunc()
print(myFunc) -- prints pointer
print(env.x) -- prints 14
Alternatively, you could make use of the Debug Library:
> myFunc = function() local x = 14 ; debug.debug() end
> myFunc()
> lua_debug> _, x = debug.getlocal(3, 1)
> lua_debug> print(x) -- prints 14
It would probably be more useful to you to retrieve the local variables with a hook function instead of explicitly entering debug mode (i.e. adding the debug.debug() call)
There is also a Debug Interface in the Lua C API.