I have an OrderedMap called "firebase" from the immutable-js library which has three leaf nodes:
but then I'd expect to be able to inspect the ordered map at firebase.auth with:
newValue.getIn(['firebase', 'auth'])
But that doesn't work:
Can someone help me understand what I'm doing wrong.
Your auth is an Immutable OrderedMap, but it seems that your firebase is a simple JavaScript object, not an Immutable.js one. Hence why getIn would not work. Thus newValue.get('firebase').auth would suffice.
If you are not using the redux-immutable package then you are probably going to have these (and other) issues due to combineReducers. However, combineReducers created using redux-immutable uses Immutable.js API to iterate the state so check it out.
Related
I am trying to find a clean way to access the regmap that is used with *RegisterNode for creating documentation and testing files. The TLRegisterNode has methods for generating the json through some Annotations. These are done in the regmap method by adding them to the ElaborationArtefacts object. Other protocols don't seem to have these annotations.
Is there anyway to iterate over the "regmap" Register Fields post elaboration or during?
I cannot just access the regmap as it's not really a val/var since it's a method. I can't quite figure out where this information is being stored. I don't really believe it's actually "storing" any information as much as it is simply creating the hardware to attach the specified logic to the RegisterNode based logic.
The JSON output is actually fine for me as I could just write a post processing script to convert JSON to my required formats, but I'm wondering if I can access this information OR if I could add a custom function call at the end. I cannot extend the case class *RegisterNode, but I'm not sure if it's possible to add custom functions to run at the end of the regmap method.
Here is something I threw together quickly:
//in *RegisterRouter.scala
def customregmap(customFunc: (RegField.Map*) => Unit, mapping: RegField.Map*) = {
regmap(mapping:_*)
customFunc(mapping:_*)
}
def regmap(mapping: RegField.Map*) = {
//normal stuff
}
A user could then create a custom function to run and pass it to the regmap or to the RegisterRouter
def myFunc(mapping: RegField.Map*): Unit = {
println("I'm doing my custom function for regmap!")
}
// ...
node.customregmap(myFunc,
0x0 -> coreControlRegFields,
0x4 -> fdControlRegFields,
0x8 -> fdControl2RegFields,
)
This is just a quick example I have. I believe what would be better, if something like this was possible, would be to have a Seq of functions that could be added to the RegisterNode that are ran at the end of the regmap method, similar to how TLRegisterNode currently works. So a user could add an arbitrary number and you still use the regmap call.
Background (not directly part of question):
I have a unified register script that I have built over the years in which I describe the registers for a particular IP. It works very similar to the RegField/node.regmap, except it obviously doesn't know about diplomacy and the like. It will generate the Verilog, but also a variety of files for DV (basic `defines for simple verilog simulations and more complex uvm_reg_block defines also with the ability to describe multiple of the IPs for a subsystem all the way up to an SoC level). It will also print out C Header files for SW and Sphinx reStructuredText for documentation.
Diplomacy actually solves one of the main issues I've been dealing with so I'm obviously trying to push most of my newer designs to Chisel/Diplo.
I ended up solving this by creating my own RegisterNode which is the same as the rocketchip RegisterNodes except that I use a different Elaboration Artifact to grab the info and store it for later.
const TelegramBot= require('./telegram-bot') // It's currently only local.
var bot = new TelegramBot()
console.log(bot)
// This does not print a complete JSON of the object. It misses stuff like
constructor, method, prototype and super_.
Is there some way or npm module that prints a JSON compatible output of the object?
My only work around so far is console logging it out like this and repeatedly checking the log and printing out another but I think it'll be a lot of easier by having a JSON export and using a JSON online viewer that views like a directory tree.
console.log(`
TelegramBot:
> ${Object.getOwnPropertyNames(TelegramBot)}
TelegramBot.prototype:
> ${Object.getOwnPropertyNames(TelegramBot.prototype)}
TelegramBot.prototype.constructor:
> ${Object.getOwnPropertyNames(TelegramBot.prototype.constructor)}
TelegramBot.prototype.constructor.super_:
> ${Object.getOwnPropertyNames(TelegramBot.prototype.constructor.super_)}
`)
I'm aware functions can't be seen with JSON.parse(). I don't mind if they appear as a string like "Anonymous Function()" or "FunctionWithAName()". Or something like this.
I'm doing this since I'm having another go trying to learn prototypes and I've used util.inherits(TelegramBot, EventEmitter) in the TelegramBot object.
To avoid name clashes between TelegramBot methods I've made and the super class of EventEmitter names. I'd like to keep a clear view of the whole object structure. Or do I not have to worry since they use this variable shadowing thing? If I'm correct it checks the object's instance first, then it's prototype. Not sure if EventEmitter prototype checked first or TelegramBot's.
I'm new to om.next (and to clojurescript), and I have the following question. I can only get the root component to be invoked with the reconciler (i.e. have its query method invoked); every other component seems to need to be invoked with props and with om/factory. I think I'm missing something.
I am attempting to create a todo list app (100 points for originality!), with a filter to show completed/incomplete/all items. If my TodoList component is the root component, I can invoke it with query: [:todos] with no problem. I'd like to have a different root component, and also have a Filter component that goes through the reconciler.
Possible options I can see:
have multiple om/add-root! calls (this prevents us from having nested components that use the reconciler, and is not the pattern that I see in tutorials)
wrap everything in a global component and pass state down through props. But the examples make read a multimethod, which doesn't jive with this approach.
Is this possible? Thank you!
If you haven't already please take a look at Components, Identity & Normalization · omcljs/om Wiki · GitHub. This tutorial shows how to organize a multi-component application under a single root - and it should also make clear how read, mutate, Ident, IQuery, etc. are being used by each individual component to coordinate interaction with the one-and-only app state via the reconciler. The app-state is basically the application's database - using nested data structures inside a single Map.
React applications typically only have a single root component - if there are multiple roots they are typically organized by routes, i.e. one root per route (see also Top-level React Components — Medium).
Also: Om/Next: The Reconciler — Medium
The concept behind Om Next (and others such as reframe) is that there is one source of truth - your app state. With Om Next the UI of your application is made up of one (upside down) component tree. During rendering your app state is loaded into your Root component by Om Next interpreting its static query. This app state is received as 'props'. It is your job to pick these props apart and hand 'sub props' down the rest of the tree. You do this in the render method of each of your components.
So your second option is the way to go. reads are related to keywords that are in your static component queries. If you make sure that your state is in default db format, then in fact every read can be implemented the same way, making use of db->tree. Having a global component and making every read a multimethod are unrelated concepts, and thus not incompatible. In fact having both is quite idiomatic.
There are ToDo application examples already that you may wish to look at for reference: here and here.
One thing to note is that your Root component query will use joins to include the other components, so your query [:todos] does not look right to me. Something like [{:todos (om/get-query TodoList)}] would be better :-)
I've written a JTree with couple of nodes. When I launch the program, I only see the node icons like folder or file and not the names associated with them. I could expand and collapse the nodes. When I debug, I see that the nodes are set with proper data whatever I used while building the model. In this program, i've written wrappers for JTree, TreeModel, DefaultMutableTreeNode. What could be the problem? Any pointers would be of great help.
-Paul
Sorry for not posting more details/code. Anyway, I've found the problem with my code. The problem was that I had overridden the toString() method in the class that I use to set as user object for the tree node, but that was returning null. As the method was returning null, there was nothing displayed. I made it to return the string to be displayed. It is working good now.
Thanks guys..!
I'm following the example of JTreeTable filesystem2 taken from the sun site http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable2/index.html#updating_the
My problem is that I can't update my model (and then my JTreeTable)...
In fact I create my model, I pass it to the JTreeTable and all work fine...but I need to modify the model...
I've yet answer a similar question, but now I've changed my code, without find a solution.
The problem is when and how I have to call the method fireTreeNodesChanged()...in the example above is used the method getPath() to retrieve information about the root node...but this is a method of File class..not my case...
Does anyone have a link to a simple code which shows how create a TreeTabelModel (with objects as nodes) and how update it?
FileBrowser is a good example of modeling a hierarchical file system as a tree. While its TreeModel is implemented using DefaultTreeModel, an alternative FileTreeModel is shown here. As mentioned in How to Use Trees: Creating a Data Model "the TreeModel interface accepts any kind of object as a tree node."