I have the following function in my OperationWalker:
public override void VisitDynamicInvocation(IDynamicInvocationOperation operation)
{
var memberReferenceOp = (IDynamicMemberReferenceOperation)operation.Operation;
switch (memberReferenceOp.Instance.Type)
{
case INamedTypeSymbol type:
{
var memberName = memberReferenceOp.MemberName;
var members = type.GetMembers(memberName);
if (members.Length > 1)
{
// WHAT DO I DO HERE ???
}
else
{
Result.Add((IMethodSymbol)members[0]);
}
break;
}
case IDynamicTypeSymbol dynamicType:
Unresolved.Add((operation.Syntax, memberReferenceOp.MemberName));
break;
}
}
I am clueless when a method on a normal type (non dynamic) is called with a dynamic parameter and there is a choice of target methods with the same name. E.g.:
class A
{
public void Get(int i){}
public void Get(string s){}
public void Get(object o){}
public void Get(double s, int precision){}
}
...
dynamic x = ...;
A a;
a.Get(x)
In this case any of the first 3 A.Get methods may be called, depending on the actual type of x. But not the fourth method.
Is there a way in Roslyn to get this information? Specifically in this example, I would like to get the symbols for first 3 Get methods.
The logic is non trivial, because one needs to take into account:
Default parameters, so just counting the arguments may not be enough
Type conversions
Visibility Scope
Number of arguments
Parameters may be passed using the named syntax in arbitrary order
Combining it all together we get non trivial logic. Is there anything in the SemanticModel or anywhere else to help get the answer?
I figured it out and it is straightforward - SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo. When there is exact match its Symbol property returns it. When there are multiple candidates, as may be the case when one of the passed arguments is dynamic, then the property CandidateSymbols holds all the options.
I have not tested it with extension methods, so it is possible there is a gap there.
Related
I have a function that returns either an error message (String) or a Firestore DocumentReference. I was planning to use a class containing both and testing if the error message is non-null to detect an error and if not then the reference is valid. I thought that was far too verbose however, and then thought it may be neater to return a var. Returning a var is not allowed however. Therefore I return a dynamic and test if result is String to detect an error.
IE.
dynamic varResult = insertDoc(_sCollection,
dataRec.toJson());
if (varResult is String) {
Then after checking for compliance, I read the following from one of the gurus:
"It is bad style to explicitly mark a function as returning Dynamic (or var, or Any or whatever you choose to call it). It is very rare that you need to be aware of it (only when instantiating a generic with multiple type arguments where some are known and some are not)."
I'm quite happy using dynamic for the return value if that is appropriate, but generally I try to comply with best practice. I am also very aware of bloated software and I go to extremes to avoid it. That is why I didn't want to use a Class for the return value.
What is the best way to handle the above situation where the return type could be a String or alternatively some other object, in this case a Firestore DocumentReference (emphasis on very compact code)?
One option would be to create an abstract state class. Something like this:
abstract class DocumentInsertionState {
const DocumentInsertionState();
}
class DocumentInsertionError extends DocumentInsertionState {
final String message;
const DocumentInsertionError(this.message);
}
class DocumentInsertionSuccess<T> extends DocumentInsertionState {
final T object;
const DocumentInsertionSuccess(this.object);
}
class Test {
void doSomething() {
final state = insertDoc();
if (state is DocumentInsertionError) {
}
}
DocumentInsertionState insertDoc() {
try {
return DocumentInsertionSuccess("It worked");
} catch (e) {
return DocumentInsertionError(e.toString());
}
}
}
Full example here: https://github.com/ReactiveX/rxdart/tree/master/example/flutter/github_search
I have this code base which is rather big ( +/- 500k lines). I'm looking in it to find all the method calls that use a single parameter and that parameter is a specific type.
This means, I want to be able to find method calls like the following:
public class Foo { }
public class Bar { }
public class Doer{
public void doSomethingFoo(Foo foo) { }
public void doSomethingObject(Object object) { }
}
public class Usage {
Doer doer = new Doer();
public doSomething() {
Foo anObject = new Foo();
Bar bar = new Bar();
doer.doSomethingFoo(anObject);
doer.doSomethingObject(anObject);
doer.doSomethingObject(bar);
}
}
Since both doer.doSomethingFoo(anObject) and doer.doSomethingObject(anObject) are called, both those statements should be returned by the search. Similarly, doer.doSomethingObject(bar) is not returned. Of course, I don't know that doer exists.
I'm trying to use the Structural Search of IntelliJ to do so. I've used the following template $Instance$.$Method$($Parameter$), with the following parameters:
$Instance$ -> Text/regexp = .*
$Method$ -> Text/regexp = .*
$Parameter$ -> Text/regexp = Foo
Minimum count = 1 // Minimum one Foo parameter
Maximum count = 1 // Maximum one Foo parameter
This returns everything that has a parameter named foo (case-insensitive, apparently). So I'm probably doing something wrong here. But what? How can I get all calls to any method where the only param is of type Foo?
You are almost there. All you need to do now is set the Expression type (regexp) of $Parameter$ to Foo and leave Text/regexp blank. Additionally you may want to enable the Apply constraint within type hierarchy checkbox, to find subclasses of Foo too.
Note that you can leave the Text/regexp of all variables blank. This is equivalent to .*.
I want to change the global variable in a function where a local variable of same is already present.
int x=10; //global variable
void fun1()
{
fun2(5);
}
void fun2(int x)
{
x=7; //here i want that this statement assigns the value 7 to the global x
}
Just qualify it with this. It's a pretty common pattern, particularly for constructors:
public class Player
{
private readonly string name;
public Player(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
}
While I view it as acceptable if your parameter really is meant to be a new value for the field (potentially in a method which creates a new instance based on the current one and the new value for the single field, for example), I would try to avoid it in general, just from a readability perspective. Of course, the names of your private fields are an implementation detail, but when reading the code for the method, it's confusing to have two different concepts represented by the same variable name.
Rename the local parameter value.
Like Yuriy Vikulov said.
this.x for non-static variables
int x=10; //global variable
void fun1()
{
fun2(5);
}
void fun2(int lx)
{
x=7; //if you want 7
x=lx; //if you want the paramValue
}
this.x for non-static classes
NameClass.x for static variables
I often have a situation where I need to do:
function a1() {
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
.... // do some things
b.send()
return a - b;
}
function a2() {
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
.... // do some things, but different to above
b.send()
return a - b;
}
I feel like I am repeating myself, yet where I have ...., the methods are different, have different signatures, etc..
What do people normally do? Add an if (this type) do this stuff, else do the other stuff that is different? It doesn't seem like a very good solution either.
Polymorphism and possibly abstraction and encapsulation are your friends here.
You should specify better what kind of instructions you have on the .... // do some things part. If you're always using the same information, but doing different things with it, the solution is fairly easy using simple polymorphism. See my first revision of this answer. I'll assume you need different information to do the specific tasks in each case.
You also didn't specify if those functions are in the same class/module or not. If they are not, you can use inheritance to share the common parts and polymorphism to introduce different behavior in the specific part. If they are in the same class you don't need inheritance nor polymorphism.
In different classes
Taking into account you're stating in the question that you might need to make calls to functions with different signature depending on the implementation subclass (for instance, passing a or b as parameter depending on the case), and assuming you need to do something with the intermediate local variables (i.e. a and b) in the specific implementations:
Short version: Polymorphism+Encapsulation: Pass all the possible in & out parameters that every subclass might need to the abstract function. Might be less painful if you encapsulate them in an object.
Long Version
I'd store intermediate state in generic class' member, and pass it to the implementation methods. Alternatively you could grab the State from the implementation methods instead of passing it as an argument. Then, you can make two subclasses of it implementing the doSpecificStuff(State) method, and grabbing the needed parameters from the intermediate state in the superclass. If needed by the superclass, subclasses might also modify state.
(Java specifics next, sorry)
public abstract class Generic {
private State state = new State();
public void a() {
preProcess();
prepareState();
doSpecificStuf(state);
clearState();
return postProcess();
}
protected void preProcess(){
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
}
protected Object postProcess(){
b.send()
return a - b;
}
protected void prepareState(){
state.prepareState(a,b);
}
private void clearState() {
state.clear();
}
protected abstract doSpecificStuf(State state);
}
public class Specific extends Generic {
protected doSpecificStuf(State state) {
state.getA().doThings();
state.setB(someCalculation);
}
}
public class Specific2 extends Generic {
protected doSpecificStuf(State state) {
state.getB().doThings();
}
}
In the same class
Another possibility would be making the preProcess() method return a State variable, and use it inthe implementations of a1() and a2().
public class MyClass {
protected State preProcess(){
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
return new State(a,b);
}
protected Object postProcess(){
b.send()
return a - b;
}
public void a1(){
State st = preProcess();
st.getA().doThings();
State.clear(st);
return postProcess();
}
public void a2(){
State st = preProcess();
st.getB().doThings();
State.clear(st);
return postProcess();
}
}
Well, don't repeat yourself. My golden rule (which admittedly I break from time on time) is based on the ZOI rule: all code must live exactly zero, one or infinite times. If you see code repeated, you should refactor that into a common ancestor.
That said, it is not possible to give you a definite answer how to refactor your code; there are infinite ways to do this. For example, if a1() and a2() reside in different classes then you can use polymorphism. If they live in the same class, you can create a function that receives an anonymous function as parameter and then a1() and a2() are just wrappers to that function. Using a (shudder) parameter to change the function behavior can be used, too.
You can solve this in one of 2 ways. Both a1 and a2 will call a3. a3 will do the shared code, and:
1. call a function that it receives as a parameter, which does either the middle part of a1 or the middle part of a2 (and they will pass the correct parameter),
- or -
2. receive a flag (e.g. boolean), which will tell it which part it needs to do, and using an if statement will execute the correct code.
This screams out loud for the design pattern "Template Method"
The general part is in the super class:
package patterns.templatemethod;
public abstract class AbstractSuper {
public Integer doTheStuff(Integer a, Integer b) {
Integer x = b.intValue() + a.intValue();
Integer y = doSpecificStuff(x);
return b.intValue() * y;
}
protected abstract Integer doSpecificStuff(Integer x);
}
The spezific part is in the subclass:
package patterns.templatemethod;
public class ConcreteA extends AbstractSuper {
#Override
protected Integer doSpecificStuff(Integer x) {
return x.intValue() * x.intValue();
}
}
For every spezific solution you implement a subclass, with the specific behavior.
If you put them all in an Collection, you can iterate over them and call always the common method and evry class does it's magic. ;)
hope this helps
I'm experimenting with PetaPoco to convert a table into POCOs.
In my table, I've got a column named TheEnum. The values in this column are strings that represent the following enum:
public enum MyEnum
{
Fred,
Wilma
}
PetaPoco chokes when it tries to convert the string "Fred" into a MyEnum value.
It does this in the GetConverter method, in the line:
Convert.ChangeType( src, dstType, null );
Here, src is "Fred" (a string), and dstType is typeof(MyEnum).
The exception is an InvalidCastException, saying Invalid cast from 'System.String' to 'MyEnum'
Am I missing something? Is there something I need to register first?
I've got around the problem by adding the following into the GetConverter method:
if (dstType.IsEnum && srcType == typeof(string))
{
converter = delegate( object src )
{
return Enum.Parse( dstType, (string)src ) ;
} ;
}
Obviously, I don't want to run this delegate on every row as it'll slow things down tremendously. I could register this enum and its values into a dictionary to speed things up, but it seems to me that something like this would likely already be in the product.
So, my question is, do I need to do anything special to register my enums with PetaPoco?
Update 23rd February 2012
I submitted a patch a while ago but it hasn't been pulled in yet. If you want to use it, look at the patch and merge into your own code, or get just the code from here.
I'm using 4.0.3 and PetaPoco automatically converts enums to integers and back. However, I wanted to convert my enums to strings and back. Taking advantage of Steve Dunn's EnumMapper and PetaPoco's IMapper, I came up with this. Thanks guys.
Note that it does not handle Nullable<TEnum> or null values in the DB. To use it, set PetaPoco.Database.Mapper = new MyMapper();
class MyMapper : PetaPoco.IMapper
{
static EnumMapper enumMapper = new EnumMapper();
public void GetTableInfo(Type t, PetaPoco.TableInfo ti)
{
// pass-through implementation
}
public bool MapPropertyToColumn(System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi, ref string columnName, ref bool resultColumn)
{
// pass-through implementation
return true;
}
public Func<object, object> GetFromDbConverter(System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi, Type SourceType)
{
if (pi.PropertyType.IsEnum)
{
return dbObj =>
{
string dbString = dbObj.ToString();
return enumMapper.EnumFromString(pi.PropertyType, dbString);
};
}
return null;
}
public Func<object, object> GetToDbConverter(Type SourceType)
{
if (SourceType.IsEnum)
{
return enumVal =>
{
string enumString = enumMapper.StringFromEnum(enumVal);
return enumString;
};
}
return null;
}
}
You're right, handling enums is not built into PetaPoco and usually I just suggest doing exactly what you've done.
Note that this won't slow things down for requests that don't use the enum type. PetaPoco generates code to map responses to pocos so the delegate will only be called when really needed. In other words, the GetConverter will only be called the first time a particular poco type is used, and the delegate will only be called when an enum needs conversion. Not sure on the speed of Enum.Parse, but yes you could cache in a dictionary if it's too slow.
If you are using PetaPoco's T4 generation and you want enums in your generated type, you can use the PropertyType override in Database.tt:
tables["App"]["Type"].PropertyType = "Full.Namespace.To.AppType";
I you want to store the value of the enum instead of the index number (1,2,4 for example) you can locate the update function in PetaPoco class because the code is "managed" etc, when you add it as nuget package it will store the .cs file to your project. If we would have the enum variable Color = {red, yellow, blue}
Instead of:
// Store the parameter in the command
AddParam(cmd, pc.GetValue(poco), pc.PropertyInfo);
change to:
//enum?
if (i.Value.PropertyInfo.PropertyType.IsEnum)
{
AddParam(cmd, i.Value.GetValue(poco).ToString(), i.Value.PropertyInfo);
}
else
{
// Store the parameter in the command
AddParam(cmd, i.Value.GetValue(poco), i.Value.PropertyInfo);
}
It would store "yellow" instead of 2