I'm getting a ProhibitedInView error for a simple view function that does the following
export function getInfo(): Info {
const caller = context.sender
return infos.getSome(caller)
}
and realised that it's because of the context.sender call.
My assumption/understanding is that as long as a tx doesn't change the state, they can be considered ViewFunctions.
I found a warning against this on the Potential Gotchas, but why do the following functions cause view functions to fail? What does "binding methods that are exposed from nearcore" mean?
signer_account_id
signer_account_pk
predecessor_account_id
On the context of a view functions, there is no such thing as:
signer_account_id
signer_account_pk
predecessor_account_id
It is not required to sign any message to run a view function, and moreover it is not allowed. It is more like inspecting a contract anonymously, nothing should be paid for that, and the result is independent from the caller. Because of this there is no signer_account_id and signer_account_pk.
On the other hand, it is not possible to make a cross-contract call, if you are initiating this call in view mode. Because of this there is no predecessor_account_id available, since signer_account_id is not available, and it is impossible that this was called from another contract.
Related
Example:
data class T(val flag: Boolean) {
constructor(n: Int) : this(run {
// Some computation here...
<Boolean result>
})
}
In this example, the custom constructor needs to run some computation in order to determine which value to pass to the primary constructor, but the compiler does not accept the run, citing Cannot access 'run' before superclass constructor has been called, which, if I understand correctly, means instead of interpreting it as the non-extension run (the variant with no object reference in https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/scope-functions.html#function-selection), it construes it as a call to this.run (the variant with an object reference in the above table) - which is invalid as the object has not completely instantiated yet.
What can I do in order to let the compiler know I mean the run function which is not an extension method and doesn't take a scope?
Clarification: I am interested in an answer to the question as asked, not in a workaround.
I can think of several workarounds - ways to rewrite this code in a way that works as intended without calling run: extracting the code to a function; rewriting it as a (possibly highly nested) let expression; removing the run and invoking the lambda (with () after it) instead (funnily enough, IntelliJ IDEA tags that as Redundant lambda creation and suggests to Inline the body, which reinstates the non-compiling run). But the question is not how to rewrite this without using run - it's how to make run work in this context.
A good answer should do one of the following things:
Explain how to instruct the compiler to call a function rather than an extension method when a name is overloaded, in general; or
Explain how to do that specifically for run; or
Explain that (and ideally also why) it is not possible to do (ideally with supporting references); or
Explain what I got wrong, in case I got something wrong and the whole question is irrelevant (e.g. if my analysis is incorrect, and the problem is something other than the compiler construing the call to run as this.run).
If someone has a neat workaround not mentioned above they're welcome to post it in a comment - not as an answer.
In case it matters: I'm using multi-platform Kotlin 1.4.20.
Kotlin favors the receiver overload if it is in scope. The solution is to use the fully qualified name of the non-receiver function:
kotlin.run { //...
The specification is explained here.
Another option when the overloads are not in the same package is to use import renaming, but that won't work in this case since both run functions are in the same package.
could I interact with functions in my deployed contract without using truffle-contract?
I just want to run and play with my functions to check how they work.
I used MyContract.at("0x...").MyFunctionName(parameters,{from:"x0..."});
but it doesn't work.
Any idea or suggestions
Thanks
It's hard to know what you mean by "it's doesn't work", but I guess is that you are not seeing any output when running MyContract.at("0x...").MyFunctionName(parameters,{from:"x0..."}); in the truffle console?
If yes, the reason is because invoking a method to an instance of a contract will give you a Future, and you must handle the result coming back from the call in an asynchronous way. For example, if the function return a value indicating that some computation has happened, you can print the returned value in the console by:
MyContract.at("0x...").MyFunctionName(parameters,{from:"x0..."}).then(console.log)
If you're writing unit tests (to be executed via truffle test), then you can handle the return value by doing this:
MyContract.at("0x...").MyFunctionName(parameters,{from:"x0..."}).then(function(returnedValue) {
// do something with the returnedValue, e.g.
// assert.equal(returnedValue, 3, "The returned value must be 3");
});
I'm getting an E_POINTER error from the ReadSample call, and as far as I can tell, none of the pointers are invalid. See snippet below (note, it's a C++/CLI app):
IMFSample* sample = NULL;
pin_ptr<IMFSample*> pinnedSample = &sample;
LONGLONG timeStamp;
HRESULT hr = mSourceReader->ReadSample(
(DWORD)MF_SOURCE_READER_FIRST_VIDEO_STREAM,
0,
NULL,
NULL,
&timeStamp,
pinnedSample
);
I suspect the problem lies in the construction of the mSourceReader (an IMFSourceReader instance, created from an IMFMediaSource). But, alas, I've no idea how to backtrack and find the source, as all the COM calls in the chain of commands that created mSourceReader returned S_OK.
Much thanks for any tips.
You don't need pin_ptr when taking the address of a local variable, since the garbage collector never moves local variables around anyway.
I'd guess that one of the other three parameters you're passing NULL to is non-optional, but I need to see what function you're calling to know for sure.
Did you create the IMFSourceReader in synchronous or asynchronous mode? The docs say:
This method can complete synchronously or asynchronously. If you provide a callback pointer when you create the source reader, the method is asynchronous. Otherwise, the method is synchronous.
I think this is your problem:
In synchronous mode:
The pdwStreamFlags and ppSample parameters cannot be NULL. Otherwise, the method returns E_POINTER.
You've passed NULL for pdwStreamFlags, which is not allowed.
Doc link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd374665.aspx
When implementing a COM interface I always assign to the out parameters on success but should I do so also on error?
HRESULT CDemo::Div(/*[in]*/ LONG a, /*[in]*/LONG b, /*[out,retval]*/ LONG* pRet)
{
if (pRet == NULL)
return E_POINTER;
if (b == 0)
{
*pRet = 0; // is this redundant?
return E_INVALIDARG;
}
*pRet = a/b;
return S_OK;
}
At one time I was bit on the nose by not initializing an out parameter and assuming that if I initialized the variable it will remain that value if I don't change it inside the method. However I used this method from .NET and since the marshaller sees that this is an [out] parameter it discarded the initial value I placed on the call site and put in garbage after the function returned (it was fun debugging that, not).
Is assigning to an out param even on failure overcompensation or should I really do it?
Edit: Even though formally one should not access out params if the function failed I often see (and sometimes write) code like this (using the example from sharptooth's post):
ISmth *pSmth = NULL;
pObj->GetSmth(&pSmth); // HRES is ignored
if (pSmth) // Assumes that if GetSmth failed then pSmth is still NULL
{
pSmth->Foo();
pSmth->Release();
}
This works fine in un-marshalled code (same thread apartment) but if a marshaller is involved is it smart enough to only set the return value if the function succeeded?
While the other answers are not wrong, they miss a very important point -- a COM server that intends to return a failure HRESULT MUST set all [out] parameters to NULL. This is not merely a matter of good style, it is required by COM and not adhering to it can cause random crashes when there is marshaling involved.
That said, the *pRet = 0; in the original code is not redundant but correct and required.
The rule is that the calling party is not allowed to do anything with the out parameters value if the call fails. The server therefore should not provide valid values and should not pass ownership of any resources to the out parameters.
For example if you have
HRESULT GetSmth( [out] ISmth** );
method then it's expected that the server calls AddRef() on the ISmth** variable prior to returning. It must not call AddRef() if it is going to return a failure code because the client is not allowed to use the returned out parameter value and therefore will not call Release() and you'll get a memory leak.
I'm not sure I 100% agree with sharptooth. I certainly agree that for a failed COM call you cannot and must not assign any resource ownership to any out parameters. This includes memory allocation or AddRef'ing a COM object.
However I see nothing wrong (and in fact encourage) setting purely out parameters to empty values as long is does not transfer any resource ownership. For instance there is nothing technically illegal about your code setting pRet to point to 0. This transfers no resource ownership over to pRet and is merely a helper to some caller who did not properly check for success of the call.
public void PublicMethod(FooBar fooBar)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null");
// log the call [added: Thanks S.Lott]
_logger.Log("PublicMethod called with fooBar class " + fooBar.Classification);
int action = DetermineAction();
PrivateMethod(fooBar, action);
}
private void PrivateMethod(FooBar fooBar, int action)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null"); // Is this line superfluous?
/*
Do something
*/
}
Is it OK to skip this kind of error checking in private methods if the input is already checked on the public interface? Usually there's some sort of rule-of-thumb one can go by...
Edit:
Maybe ArgumentNullException isn't such a good example because the argument can be made that you should check at both levels but return different error messages.
I would say no.
While it certainly holds true that you in this case knows that it has already been checked for nullability, in two months time the youngest intern will come along and write
PublicMethod2 that also calls PrivateMethod, but lo and behold he forgot to check for null.
Since the public method doesn't really use foobar, I'm not sure why it's checking. The current private method cares, but it's the private method's responsibility to care. Indeed, the whole point of a private method is to delegate all the responsibilities to it.
A method checks the input it actually uses; it doesn't check stuff it's just passing through.
If a different subclass has the same public method, but some different private method implementation -- one that can tolerate nulls -- what now? You have a public method that now has wrong constraints for the new subclass.
You want to do as little as possible in the public method so that various private implementations are free to do the right thing. Don't "over-check" or "just-in-case" check. Delegate responsibility.
I'd error check everything you can, you never know when something might happen that you didn't think about. (and its better safe than sorry)
When using design by contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract) it’s normally client’s (public method) responsibility to make correct invocation, i.e. pass on valid parameters. In this particular scenario it depends whether null belongs to a set of valid input values, therefore there are 3 options:
1) Null is valid value: throwing exceptions or errors would have meant breaking the contract, the server (private method) has to process the null and shouldn’t complain.
2) Null is invalid value and passed by code within your control: it is up to the server (private method) to decide how to react. Obviously, throwing an exception is more graceful way of handling the situation, but it has a cost of having to handle that exception somewhere else up the stack. Exceptions are not the best way to deal with violation of contract caused by programming blunders. You really should throw exceptions not when a contract is already violated but when it cannot be fulfilled because of environmental problems what cannot be controlled in software. Blunders are better handled by sticking an assertion into the beginning of the private method to check that the parameter is not null. This will keep the complexity of your code down, there is no cost of having to handle the exception up the stack and it will achieve the goal of highlighting broken contracts during testing.
3) Then there is defensive programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming). When dealing with parameters passed by an external code outside your control the immediate layer of your code needs to run paranoid level of checks and return errors according to its communication contract with the external world. Then, going deeper into the code layers not exposed externally, it still makes more sense to stick to the programming by contract.
At least put a comment that PrivateMethod must have a non-null FooBar and that PublicMethod checks this.
You might want to also mark the "private" method as private or protected.
That depends if a null-value indicates an error for a method. Remember that methods could also be called messages to an object; they operate on the state of the object aswell. Parameters can specialize the kind of message sent.
If publicMethod() does not use a parameter and changes the state of the instance while privateMethod() uses the parameter, do not consider it an error in publicMethod, but do in privateMethod().
If publicMethod() does not change state, consider it an error.
You could see the latter case as providing an interface to the internal functioning of an object.
I'd consider the answer to be "yes, do the check again" because:-
The private member could be reused again in the future from a different path through the code, so program defensively against that situation.
If you perform unit tests on private methods
My view might change if I had a static analyser that could pick this up and not flag the potential use of a null reference in the private method.
In cases where PrivateMethod will be called frequently with input that has already been verified, and only rarely with user input, Then I would use the PublicMethod/PrivateMethod concept with no error checking on PrivateMethod (and with PublicMethod doing nothing other then checking the parameters and calling PrivateMethod)
I would also call the private method something like PublicMethod_impl (for "implementation") so it's clear that it's an internal use/ no checking method.
I maintain that this design leads to more robust application, as it forces you to think about what's checked when. Too often people who always check parameters fall into the trap of "I've checked something, therefore I've checked everything".
As an example of this, a former co-worker (programming in C) would, before using a pointer, always check to see if it was null. Generally, the pointers in his code were initialized as startup and never changed, so the chances of it being null were quite low. Moreover, the pointer has one correct value and 65535 possible wrong values, and he was only checking for one of those wrong values.