I am now moving from my code behind xaml dp binding to using CreateBindingSet, as I believe it will be easier to maintain on long run. Previously to confirm that I haven't missed any binding, I had a Windows Phone Test project with a generic test routine - that would parse a view for all the controls, and confirm that each has a correct binding. I did this using
element.GetBindingExpression(dependencyProperty) // from System.Windows
and that's worked beautifully - validating all my views.
But now as I am changing over, all these tests are failing. Has anyone any suggestions on how I can test same thing with when the binding is applied using CreateBindingSet and .Apply.
Thanks in advance.
Rana
Reasoning behind the Madness
Being a lazy sod, I dream of a day where my View would be shared across all platforms; until then, the following would do (I have most in place and working)
BoilerPlate class that would be shared between all platforms:
#if __IOS
... needed namespaces
#else ....
public partial class FirstView
{
private new FirstViewModel ViewModel
{
get { return (FirstViewModel)base.ViewModel; }
}
private void CommonBinding()
{
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<FirstView, FirstViewModel>();
// do common bindings
set.Bind(PageText).For(c => c.Text).To(vm => vm.PageText).OneTime();
set.Apply();
}
}
Then View in Touch would be:
public partial class FirstView : MvxViewController
{
public override void LoadView()
{
// create
}
public override ViewDidLoad()
{
CommonBinding();
}
}
In theory, Views in other platform would be almost similar; just different inheritance (MvxActivity with OnCreate, and OnViewModelSet)/(MvxPhonePage with xaml/alternative, and Loaded Event for binding).
Finally, a common testing way to ensure that all the items has binding set somehow. In my mind, until autoview is supported in wp8, it's just the way to have as much shared code as possible.
I have just started on droid, and trying to make the layout compatible with xibFree, which I have already used in my touch project. If this works, I can then have shared layout between droid and touch (perhaps I should be looking at autoView anyway)
I'm personally not sure what value these tests add that much value to your application - these feel like they are operating at a level of "duplicating code" rather than actually testing any functionality.
However, this is very much down to personal opinion, and if you do want this level of testing, then I think you could do this by:
Inherit a class from https://github.com/MvvmCross/MvvmCross/blob/v3.1/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.BindingEx.WindowsPhone/WindowsBinding/MvxWindowsBindingCreator.cs
Override ApplyBinding so that you can capture at test time the calls made for each element
Register this class with ioc as the IMvxBindingCreator in your test harness
Use the captured lists of binding requests in your tests
Related
So being new to AS3 but not development in general, during a recent project that I just started I hit an immediate snag where my normal method of OOD is causing errors in AS3.
I created a layer in Adobe Flash called code just to keep everything separate and in frame one under actions I used the following code to get started:
var GameContainerSize:int = 400;
class GameInfo {
var GameID:int;
var HomeTeam:String;
var VisitingTeam:String;
function GameInfo()
{
}
}
This simple code immediately causes an error though
Scene 1, Layer 'Code', Frame 1, Line 4 1131: Classes must not be nested.
And my best guess is this is because the timeline and all code on it exists within a class already. So what should I be doing if I want to develop this program using class objects, or is this even possible in flash?
You can't define classes on the timeline. Each timeline is exported as a class, var and function declarations become members of the class, and frame code is moved to its own frame functions which are called when the timeline reaches that frame. Thus the error is saying "you can't put a class in a class" because the timeline already is a class.
To define classes you must use external .as files with package blocks:
// GameInfo.as
package {
public class GameInfo {
public var GameID:int;
public var HomeTeam:String;
public var VisitingTeam:String;
public function GameInfo(){ }
}
}
In Flash Pro you can link a class to a timeline (document or symbols). Such a class must extend Sprite or MovieClip.
You can also refer to any of your classes from any frame script. For example, you could put on frame 1 of your main timeline:
var gameInfo:GameInfo = new GameInfo();
Typical OOP would involve using external .as class files for almost everything, with only minimal function calls on your timeline frames, like stop() at the end of a timeline or calling a custom function you've added to the class linked to the timeline.
I created a layer
That's not ideal. The problem is that it will not get you any closer to understanding the code, because it isn't code. It's a feature of the flash authoring environment. You might as well spend a day with the drawing tool drawing something.
to keep everything separate and in frame one under actions
Organisation is important, but layers aren't the way to go. As each class definition goes into its own external file, you have to create additional files anyway if you want to create more classes. And you want to create more classes because having only one is horrible object oriented design. Being consistent here is important. That's why people in the comments suggested to use a document class and have no code on any frames. All code is organised in classes. No exceptions1.
Having said all that, I highly advice against using Adobe Flash to learn As3. There's too much obfuscation going on behind the scenes. If you want to learn how to code As3, use a code editor. (or plain text editor + compiler if you prefer). Learning what settings dialog has to be adjusted in order to get what you want is not going to get you any closer to understanding OOD in As3.
I also see package, is this kind of like a namespace and does it need to be named, if not what is its purpose?
No, packages are packages and namespaces are namespaces. Apples and oranges.
Packages are used to organize classes just like a structure of
folders is used to organize the .as fiels of those classes. In fact,
the package is pretty much exactly that folder structure, for example:
flash.display is for all display related classes
flash.events is for events
A namespace allows you to control access to members of a class. Namespaces are very rarely used in As3. Here's an article from grant skinner about namespaces. Personally, I never needed to use namespaces. If you are jsut getting started, you can very well ignore them for now.
That sounds perfect! except I cannot get it to launch on my Win10 machine. I may just end up outsourcing this at this ratio
flash develop is the alternative editor. It's free, fast and lightweight.
my normal method of OOD
You want to extend your definition of normal with
always explicitly specify the access control modifiers
member names start with small letters
public class GameInfo {
private var gameID:int;
private var homeTeam:String;
private var visitingTeam:String;
function GameInfo()
{
}
}
1admittedly, there are top level functions that are pretty much free floating functions without a class. If you want to do oop, this is not what you want. It's for the occasional independent utility function. Stick to classes for now.
Is there anyway tom mock the super method call in a class using Powermock?
For example:
public void processRetrievedData() {
super.processRetrievedData();
}
is there anyway to mock “super.processRetrievedData()” ?
Thanks,
Rajan
Although this is bad practice, sometimes you need to mock out inheritance when your are working in an environment where there is no choice. For example, I needed to mock out super class methods in a Dialog Fragment in Android to isolate my unit tests. In your case, within your test use...
#PrepareForTest(ChildClass.class)
public class ChildClassTest {
#Test
public void testMethod() {
PowerMockito.suppress(PowerMockito.method(SuperClass.class, "processRetrievedData"))
// Run method and test
}
}
There are other overloaded methods listed in the API under the MemberMatcher class that are useful in other cases such as, method has parameters, there are additional inherited methods, etc. Hope that helps.
This is a terrible idea and a dirty hack.
If this is a part of your subject under test then you should never, ever do such things since you're testing the behaviour of that whole class and not only part of it.
If you really need to do sth similar you can extend the class and override the processRetrievedData method so that it doesn't call super - that way you stub that method.
I'm currently working on a project that involve a re-implementation of the Array class.
This object needs to be an Array for compatibility reasons, while I also need to keep control of what is written in.
I cannot seem to find any way to check property creation inside of a dynamic object in AS3. Something that would work like the Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE but, like, ClassEvent.PROPERTY_ADDED.
I override methods like push, splice etc, but I cannot control direct assignation : MyArray[i] = ...
Is such a thing even possible ?
Of course, I could make some kind of validations elsewhere, but this would involve accessing a part of the code I cannot modify.
Thanks for your time !
I'm not sure I follow you entirely but you may be looking for the Proxy class:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/utils/Proxy.html
An example at the bottom shows you how you can override direct assignment:
override flash_proxy function setProperty(name:*, value:*):void {
_item[name] = value;
}
Using this you would be able to dispatch a custom event that would be fired any time an item was added to your ProxyArray
I'm trying to figure out how best to setup a kind of universal game element class for my game. What I want to try and create is a structure similar too..
GameElementPositionMovement (root class)
->GameElementVisual (handles all the graphics)
->GameElementPersonality (handles game logic)
I then want to be able to set up different personalities (monster, hero, icon etc) just by creating an instance of GameElementPersonality, but in it's constructor also be able to setup the visual and positioning/movement aspects as well.
I mentioned this in another question, and the answer that came back was...
It seems that you need kind of 'data model' class to store logic and a
visual ('view') class. Visual class shouldn't inherit from data model,
it should use it. This is OOP related problem: IS vs HAS (inheritance
vs composition)
But I'm not sure if I understand that. The position/movement without any visual data, seems a good first root class, and then you add to that the visual aspects (GameElementVisual), and then finally you add in personality "traits" (GameElementPersonality) such as armour, damage, health etc
Therefore I'm keeping, the positioning/movement, visual and logic separate, and I presumed the heirachy that I've laid out would be the best way to do that, but is this not a good way to do this? should it be more flat? with the GameElementPositionMovement, creating both a visual and logic instance and storing that in itself?
You could create a structure similar to this:
(pseudocode)
ElementData
//it doesn't have to extend any particular class
//however it would be nice if it could dispatch events and register listeners
class ElementData implements IEventDispatcher
{
public function ElementData() //constructor
{
//do some stuff
}
public function setSomeProperty(value:int):void
{
//
}
public function doSomeCrazyStuff():void
{
//
}
}
ElementVisual
class ElementVisual extends MovieClip //or just Sprite or even DiplayObjectContainer
{
public function ElementVisual(elementData)
{
//constructor takes an instance of ElementData class
elementData.addEventListener(CHANGE, onDataChange)
elementData.doSomeCrazyStuff();
if (userCliked)
{
elementData.setSomeProperty(15);
}
//you can have here some interactions with user (keyboard, mouse)
//then it can communicate with elenemtData and 'listen' what it says.
}
function onDataChange
{
//react accordingly
}
}
some visual representation (you may need many of these)
class Monster extends ElementVisual
{
//do all the graphic, animations etc
}
Then you need a class to set up all the data, visuals etc… In simplest implementation it can be the 'document class'.
It's not a proper MVC model - it's a simple example to show the concept of decoupling logic from visualisation.
MVC is not the only solution, there are other so called 'design patterns' which may be useful...
Yeah the idea with MVC is to keep things decoupled, in your case you're ultimately smashing everything into one chain of inheritance where you'll end up with one type of object that inherits all the properties from another object that inherits all the properties from another object, so you'll have an instance of this thing that represents everything, which is why this isn't a great pattern to go with.
If instead you have a GameElementPositionMovement class (Your main class) create an instance of the GameElementVisual and in instance of GameElementPersonality (or multiple instances if need be). Then any time a change to a property is made in GameElementPersonality (or any in the collection if you choose to make a collection) could dispatch an event, the main class GameElementPositionMovement could listen for the dispatched event and when it gets it can set/pass the GameElementPersonality instance or array to the GameElementVisual. Then in the GameElementVisual you're just dealing with drawing based on the current model all the time, the model is separated from the view logic, you'd also probably want to handle control in a separate class or in GameElementPositionMovement. (control being the modification of the model, in this case it would probably also be where you register listeners for user events, keyboard, mouse whatever)
This way the model remains clean of control logic and view logic, it's a clear separation of what goes where and really only the view sort of depends on the model and the controller sort of depends on the view but if interfaces are established for what the model view controller each need to communicate with each other in this way you can swap out any of those parts with a new class that implements the interface (not likely an issue in a small game, but the design lends itself to this ability and therefor future scalability).
I am having trouble incorporating graphical assets created in Flash with my Haxe code.
In the Flash IDE, I've created a symbol with the linkage name "MySprite". I compile this into assets.swf. I know that to use symbols in this .swf from my Haxe code, I need to add the following option when using the Haxe compiler:
-swf-lib assets.swf
I'd now like to write a class called "MySprite" which is associated with this symbol, like so:
class MySprite extends Sprite {
public function new() {
// ...
}
}
Basically, I'd like to achieve something similar to the technique presented in this tutorial:
package {
import flash.display.*;
[Embed(source="assets.swf", symbol="MySprite")]
public class MySprite extends Sprite {
public function MySprite() {
// ...
}
}
}
It's unclear from the Haxe documentation whether this can be done, or what the syntax is for doing it.
I think so, but I'm not sure, Haxe doesn't override classes from assets.swf with the classes you declared. There was a discussion about it on the mailing list (the old one, not in the Google groups), and this was the decision... I don't know why this decision was made.
You could still do it with SamHaxe. At least back in the days I was able to. Unfortunately, SamHaxe was abandoned, and if there are bugs or something not working as you need it - you are pretty much on your own. The good thing about Sam is that it's relatively small project. It's written in Haxe and I was able to build it from sources.
You could also try: http://code.google.com/p/hxswfml/ The project seems to be functional and the author used to reply to users. It might be a tad more complex though. I'm quite sure it was possible to do, but you will probably need to ask the author / figure it out yourself.