A predicate (an object that is a boolean-valued function which tests its input for a condition) is generally assumed to be stateless.
What's the most appropriate name for an object which has a testing function with state?
e.g. in Java, the CountTrigger class below returns true only on the Nth time it is tested against a value that matches a desired value, and false otherwise.
interface QuasiPredicate<T> // what should this be renamed to?
{
public boolean test(T value);
}
class CountTrigger<T> implements QuasiPredicate<T>
{
// for simplicity, ignore synchronization + null-value issues
private int remainingTriggers = 0;
final private T testValue;
public CountTrigger(T testValue, int count)
{
this.remainingTriggers = count;
this.testValue = testValue;
}
#Override public boolean test(T value)
{
if (!this.testValue.equals(value))
return false;
if (this.remainingTriggers == 0)
return false;
if (--this.remainingTriggers == 0)
return true;
}
}
Considering it's an interface and interfaces are implemented and not extended then I don't see the problem in your object implementing a predicate.
If you're going to put public CountTrigger(T testValue, int count) in the interface as well then maybe you need a different name. Perhaps IFiniteRule or another suitable synonym. Maybe ask at https://english.stackexchange.com/ ;-)
Related
I am trying to write test case but stuck with this error. How to fix this error ?
#Override
public boolean isDuplicateSystemDetail(SystemFormBean systemFormBean){
List<BrmSystem> list = systemDao.isDuplicateSystemDetail(systemFormBean);
if(CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(list)){
return true;
}else{
return false;
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Test
public void isDuplicateSystemDetail_Should_Return_True(){
List<BrmSystem> list = new ArrayList<BrmSystem>();
BrmSystem brmSystem = new BrmSystem();
SystemFormBean systemFormBean = new SystemFormBean();
brmSystem.setSystemName("Test");
list.add(brmSystem);
when(systemDao.isDuplicateSystemDetail(systemFormBean)).thenReturn(list);
}
Probably SystemFormBean class doesn't override equals(). So when isDuplicateSystemDetail(systemFormBean) invokes, it has another object of this class as a parameter which is not the same as the one you've created manually (by default Object.equals() compares memory adresses which would be false in your case).
Try to override equals() to compare by f.e. actual fields of SystemFormBean or rewrite "when" clause as
systemDao.isDuplicateSystemDetail(Mockito.any(SystemFormBean.class))
In ActionScript 3, is there a clean way to define a function that accepts an optional boolean argument ? As you may know, this is invalid :
public function test(param:Boolean = null):void {
trace(param);
}
This triggers the following error: VerifyError: Error #1102: Illegal default value for type Boolean. Since, Boolean is a primitive, I guess it makes sense that it cannot be set to null. The only workaround I found is to cast the parameter to an object :
public function test(param:Object = null):void {
trace(Boolean(param));
}
However, this does not feel very clean, particularly if you are developing libraries. ASDoc will generate API documentation that says the expected parameter is an Object whereas what is really needed is a Boolean.
Is there a better approach ?
When you say optional, I assume that you mean if there isn't a value supplied then something different should happen compared to if you had a default value of true or false.
You could make your own object to handle the three states that you need and maintain code readability by using a class like this:
public class Condition
{
private var _value:* = null;
public function Condition(initial:* = null)
{
value = initial;
}
public function set value(n:*):void
{
if(_value === null || _value === false || _value === true)
{
_value = n;
}
}
public function get value():*{ return _value; }
}
And then your function could be:
function test(param:Condition = null):void
{
if(param && param.value != null)
{
trace(param.value);
}
}
test( new Condition() );
test( new Condition(true) );
As you said Boolean can not be set to null value.
Therefore, you should specify a default value that is either true or false.
public function test(param:Boolean = false):void {
trace(param);
}
But because you need the third case where nothing is set, one option could be to accept any Object but throw an exception if it is not null and not a boolean:
public function test(param:* = null):void
{
if (param != null)
{
if ((param == true) || (param == false))
{
trace(Boolean(param).toString());
}
else
{
throw new CustomError("param should be a boolean");
}
}
else
{
// Do nothing
}
}
Note that this solution also accept objects or primitives that can be compared to true or false such as 0, 1, or [].
From the good suggestions and discussion above I think that, in a library scenario and for simplicity's sake, the best way remains to type the parameter as Object with a default value of null but to request a Boolean in the API documentation :
/**
* #param param Boolean object or null
*/
public function test(param:Object = null):void {
trace(Boolean(param));
}
This allow the user of the library to pass a either a Boolean or nothing at all. Thanks everyone.
There was a tonne of discussion on my previous answer, but this is the correct way to have a function that accepts one of three states. My previous answer attempted to retain the use of a Boolean value like you were requesting, but that is not the right way to go about it.
Create a class that defines three values:
class State
{
public static const EMPTY:int = -1;
public static const FALSE:int = 0;
public static const TRUE:int = 1;
}
Your function will accept an int (the type of each of the three properties within your State class). It will deal with the three possible values. You can use concise commenting to notify the developer of what thee values the function is expecting, referencing the State class. The default value can be -1 aka State.EMPTY.
/**
* Function description.
* #param state One of three states, defined by State.
*/
function test(state:int = -1):void
{
switch(state)
{
case State.EMPTY:
// No value given.
break;
case State.TRUE:
// True.
//
break;
case State.FALSE:
// False.
//
break;
default:
throw new ArgumentError("Unsupported value for test()");
break;
}
}
How would I write a simple LINQ to SQL extension method called "IsActive" which would contain a few basic criteria checks of a few different fields, so that I could reuse this "IsActive" logic all over the place without duplicating the logic.
For example, I would like to be able to do something like this:
return db.Listings.Where(x => x.IsActive())
And IsActive would be something like:
public bool IsActive(Listing SomeListing)
{
if(SomeListing.Approved==true && SomeListing.Deleted==false)
return true;
else
return false;
}
Otherwise, I am going to have to duplicate the same old where criteria in a million different queries right throughout my system.
Note: method must render in SQL..
Good question, there is a clear need to be able to define a re-useable filtering expression to avoid redundantly specifying logic in disparate queries.
This method will generate a filter you can pass to the Where method.
public Expression<Func<Listing, bool>> GetActiveFilter()
{
return someListing => someListing.Approved && !someListing.Deleted;
}
Then later, call it by:
Expression<Func<Filter, bool>> filter = GetActiveFilter()
return db.Listings.Where(filter);
Since an Expression<Func<T, bool>> is used, there will be no problem translating to sql.
Here's an extra way to do this:
public static IQueryable<Filter> FilterToActive(this IQueryable<Filter> source)
{
var filter = GetActiveFilter()
return source.Where(filter);
}
Then later,
return db.Listings.FilterToActive();
You can use a partial class to achieve this.
In a new file place the following:
namespace Namespace.Of.Your.Linq.Classes
{
public partial class Listing
{
public bool IsActive()
{
if(this.Approved==true && this.Deleted==false)
return true;
else
return false;
}
}
}
Since the Listing object (x in your lambda) is just an object, and Linq to SQL defines the generated classes as partial, you can add functionality (properties, methods, etc) to the generated classes using partial classes.
I don't believe the above will be rendered into the SQL query. If you want to do all the logic in the SQL Query, I would recommend making a method that calls the where method and just calling that when necessary.
EDIT
Example:
public static class DataManager
{
public static IEnumerable<Listing> GetActiveListings()
{
using (MyLinqToSqlDataContext ctx = new MyLinqToSqlDataContext())
{
return ctx.Listings.Where(x => x.Approved && !x.Deleted);
}
}
}
Now, whenever you want to get all the Active Listings, just call DataManager.GetActiveListings()
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static bool IsActive( this Listing SomeListing)
{
if(SomeListing.Approved==true && SomeListing.Deleted==false)
return true;
else
return false;
}
}
Late to the party here, but yet another way to do it that I use is:
public static IQueryable<Listing> GetActiveListings(IQueryable<Listing> listings)
{
return listings.Where(x => x.Approved && !x.Deleted);
}
and then
var activeListings = GetActiveListings(ctx.Listings);
I have several data manipulation widgets that all implement a custom IPropertyEditor interface. I would like to include a GetValue getter, but the return types could be String, Boolean or int, off the top of my head. In AS3, all of that inherits from Object, so I could have GetValue return an object, but I don't feel great about that approach. At the risk of asking a subjective question, does anyone have any recommendations on how to approach this?
In ActionScript I'm pretty sure you can set a variable return type by defining a function in the following way:
public function getValue():* {
return "Any of these would be fine.";
return true;
return 1;
return new Sprite();
}
Hope that helps.
In practice, there is an actual getter/setter model in ActionScript. For your case, you could use it like this:
private var _value:*;
public function get value() : * {
return _value;
}
public function set value(val:*) : void {
if (typeof val == "int" || typeof val == "boolean" || typeof val == "string") {
_value = val;
}
}
This limits the user to setting (per your requirements) the value of this "value" property to data types int, Boolean, or String.
In response to What is your longest-held programming assumption that turned out to be incorrect? question, one of the wrong assumptions was:
That private member variables were
private to the instance and not the
class.
(Link)
I couldn't catch what he's talking about, can anyone explain what is the wrong/right about that with an example?
public class Example {
private int a;
public int getOtherA(Example other) {
return other.a;
}
}
Like this. As you can see private doesn't protect the instance member from being accessed by another instance.
BTW, this is not all bad as long as you are a bit careful.
If private wouldn't work like in the above example, it would be cumbersome to write equals() and other such methods.
Here's the equivalent of Michael Borgwardt's answer for when you are not able to access the private fields of the other object:
public class MutableInteger {
private int value;
// Lots of stuff goes here
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if(!(o instanceof MutableInteger)){ return false; }
MutableInteger other = (MutableInteger) o;
return other.valueEquals(this.value); // <------------
}
#Override // This method would probably also be declared in an interface
public boolean valueEquals(int oValue) {
return this.value == oValue;
}
}
Nowadays this is familiar to Ruby programmers but I have been doing this in Java for a while. I prefer not to rely on access to another object's private fields. Remember that the other object may belong to a subclass, which could store the value in a different object field, or in a file or database etc.
Example code (Java):
public class MutableInteger {
private int value;
// Lots of stuff goes here
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if(!(o instanceof MutableInteger)){ return false; }
MutableInteger other = (MutableInteger) o;
return this.value == other.value; // <------------
}
}
If the assumption "private member variables are private to the instance" were correct, the marked line would cause a compiler error, because the other.value field is private and part of a different object than the one whose equals() method is being called.
But since in Java (and most other languages that have the visibility concept) private visibility is per-class, access to the field is allowed to all code of the MutableInteger, irrelevant of what instance was used to invoke it.