I am using Swagger codegen 3.0.8 to generate Java files. Part of the yaml spec is
PrepositionalPhrase:
type: object
required:
- preposition
- objects
properties:
preposition:
description: The preposition
type: string
enum:
- of
- on
- or
(with more values stripped for conciseness). The generated enum is
public enum PrepositionEnum {
OF("of"),
TRUE("true"),
OR("or")
}
For some reason, it appears that on is being mapped to true. I can see that happening in some config parser, where "on" would logically mean "true", but that does not work for code generation.
The command line I am using to generate is
swagger-codegen generate \
-i api.yaml \
-l java \
--api-package com.example \
--artifact-version 1.2.0 \
--artifact-id example \
--group-id com.example \
--model-package com.example.model
Is there some way to prevent this from happening?
According to this ticket swagger-codegen/issues/2559, it's rather a YAML format feature, which seems to be right:
Language Independent Scalar types:
{ ~, null } : Null (no value).
[ 1234, 0x4D2, 02333 ] : [ Decimal int, Hexadecimal int, Octal int ]
[ 1_230.15, 12.3015e+02 ]: [ Fixed float, Exponential float ]
[ .inf, -.Inf, .NAN ] : [ Infinity (float), Negative, Not a number ]
{ Y, true, Yes, ON } : Boolean true
{ n, FALSE, No, off } : Boolean false
https://yaml.org/refcard.html
Apparently the workaround is to quote the values in the YAML file.
Related
I want to compile this script:
Red [File: %b.red]
context [
a: 123
hidden: 999
set 'global-exports context [
export-a: a
]
]
probe global-exports
But I get an error when trying to compile it with $ ./red-13oct19-a4ee537c -r b.red:
*** Red Compiler Internal Error: Script Error : Invalid path value: global-exports
*** Where: register-object
*** Near: [objects/context/global-exports: make object! [
a: none
hidden: none
]]
In general, you can wrap dynamic code with do [...] function, which treats a block of code like data and uses an interpreter to launch it at runtime:
Red [File: %b.red]
context [
a: 123
hidden: 999
do [ ;-- the code inside is run by interpreter at runtime
set 'global-exports context [
export-a: a
]
]
]
probe get 'global-exports ;-- dynamic retrieval
You also have to retrieve values dynamically, unless you initialize it statically (e.g. global-exports: none) somewhere earlier.
In this particular case also exchanging context with make object! will be sufficient:
Red [File: %b.red]
context [
a: 123
hidden: 999
set 'global-exports make object! [
export-a: a
]
]
probe global-exports
Compiling dynamic code will be possible with JIT compiler, which is planned in future, but not before Red version 1.0.
(thanks #9214 and #hiiamboris for the ideas on red/help gitter chat)
I am using swagger-codegen to generate client SDK in Objective C language. One of my APIs is taking boolean parameter. Parameter is defined in Swagger Specification as follows:
"parameters": [
{
"name": "recursive",
"in": "query",
"description": "",
"required": false,
"type": "boolean"
}
]
The generated client SDK is checking if BOOL variabe is nil. BOOL is a primitive type in Objective C, cannot be checked against nil. It is causing compilation error.
-(NSNumber*) folderDeleteFolderWithCompletionBlock: (NSString*) path recursive: (BOOL) recursive {
...
if(recursive != nil)
{
queryParams[#"recursive"] = recursive;
}
...
}
If we use NSNumber + (NSNumber *)numberWithBool:(BOOL)value in place of BOOL, this issue can be fixed. How can I map boolean in swagger specification to NSNumber in client SDK?
I made few changes in ObjcClientCodegen.java like replace following line
typeMapping.put("boolean", "BOOL");
with
typeMapping.put("boolean", "NSNumber");
Even I remove BOOL from defaultIncludes and languageSpecificPrimitives HashSets
defaultIncludes = new HashSet<String>(
Arrays.asList(
/*"bool",
"BOOL",*/
"int",
"NSString",
"NSObject",
"NSArray",
"NSNumber",
"NSDate",
"NSDictionary",
"NSMutableArray",
"NSMutableDictionary")
);
languageSpecificPrimitives = new HashSet<String>(
Arrays.asList(
"NSNumber",
"NSString",
"NSObject",
"NSDate"/*,
"bool",
"BOOL"*/)
);
In-spite this generated client SDK is using BOOL data type instead of NSNumber.
Any help in this regard will be highly appreciated.
The latest version of Swagger-Codegen has this issue addressed.
I usually program by functions in an "instinctive" manner, but my current problem can be easily solved by objects, so I go ahead with this method.
Doing so, I am trying to find a way to give an object a constructor method, the equivalent of init() in python, for example.
I looked in the http://www.rebol.com/docs/core-fr/fr-index.html documentation, but I couldn't find anything relevant.
There is no special constructor function in Rebol, but there is a possibility to write ad hoc init code if you need it on object's creation in the spec block. For example:
a: context [x: 123]
b: make a [
y: x + 1
x: 0
]
So, if you define your own "constructor" function by convention in the base object, you can call it the spec block on creation. If you want to make it automatic, you can wrap that in a function, like this:
a: context [
x: 123
init: func [n [integer!]][x: n]
]
new-a: func [n [integer!]][make a [init n]]
b: new-a 456
A more robust (but bit longer) version of new-a that would avoid the possible collision of passed arguments to init with object's own words would be:
new-a: func [n [integer!] /local obj][
also
obj: make a []
obj/init n
]
You could also write a more generic new function that would take a base object as first argument and automatically invoke a constructor-by-convention function after cloning the object, but supporting optional constructor arguments in a generic way is then more tricky.
Remember that the object model of Rebol is prototype-based (vs class-based in Python and most other OOP languages), so the "constructor" function gets duplicated for each new object created. You might want to avoid such cost if you are creating a huge number of objects.
To my knowledge, there is no formal method/convention for using object constructors such as init(). There is of course the built-in method of constructing derivative objects:
make prototype [name: "Foo" description: "Bar"]
; where type? prototype = object!
My best suggestion would be to define a function that inspects an object for a constructor method, then applies that method, here's one such function that I've proposed previously:
new: func [prototype [object!] args [block! none!]][
prototype: make prototype [
if in self 'new [
case [
function? :new [apply :new args]
block? :new [apply func [args] :new [args]]
]
]
]
]
The usage is quite straightforward: if a prototype object has a new value, then it will be applied in the construction of the derivative object:
thing: context [
name: description: none
new: [name: args/1 description: args/2]
]
derivative: new thing ["Foo" "Bar"]
note that this approach works in both Rebol 2 and 3.
Actually, by reading again the Rebol Core documentation (I just followed the good old advice: "Read The French Manual"), there is another way to implement a constructor, quite simple:
http://www.rebol.com/docs/core-fr/fr-rebolcore-10.html#section-8
Of course it is also in The English Manual:
http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-10.html#section-7
=>
Another example of using the self variable is a function that clones
itself:
person: make object! [
name: days-old: none
new: func [name' birthday] [
make self [
name: name'
days-old: now/date - birthday
]
]
]
lulu: person/new "Lulu Ulu" 17-May-1980
print lulu/days-old
7366
I find this quite convenient, and this way, the constructor lies within the object. This fact makes the object more self-sufficient.
I just implemented that successfully for some geological stuff, and it works well:
>> source orientation
orientation: make object! [
matrix: []
north_reference: "Nm"
plane_quadrant_dip: ""
new: func [{Constructor, builds an orientation object! based on a measurement, as given by GeolPDA device, a rotation matrix represented by a suite of 9 values} m][
make self [
foreach [a b c] m [append/only matrix to-block reduce [a b c]]
a: self/matrix/1/1
b: self/matrix/1/2
c: self/matrix/1/3
d: self/matrix/2/1
e: self/matrix/2/2
f: self/matrix/2/3
g: self/matrix/3/1
h: self/matrix/3/2
i: self/matrix/3/3
plane_normal_vector: reduce [matrix/1/3
matrix/2/3
matrix/3/3
]
axis_vector: reduce [self/matrix/1/2
self/matrix/2/2
self/matrix/3/2
]
plane_downdip_azimuth: azimuth_vector plane_normal_vector
plane_direction: plane_downdip_azimuth - 90
if (plane_direction < 0) [plane_direction: plane_direction - 180]
plane_dip: arccosine (plane_normal_vector/3)
case [
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 315) or (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 45)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "N"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 45) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 135)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "E"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 135) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 225)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "S"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 225) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 315)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "W"]
]
line_azimuth: azimuth_vector axis_vector
line_plunge: 90 - (arccosine (axis_vector/3))
]
]
repr: func [][
print rejoin ["Matrix: " tab self/matrix
newline
"Plane: " tab
north_reference to-string to-integer self/plane_direction "/" to-string to-integer self/plane_dip "/" self/plane_quadrant_dip
newline
"Line: " tab
rejoin [north_reference to-string to-integer self/line_azimuth "/" to-string to-integer self/line_plunge]
]
]
trace_te: func [diagram [object!]][
len_queue_t: 0.3
tmp: reduce [
plane_normal_vector/1 / (square-root (((plane_normal_vector/1 ** 2) + (plane_normal_vector/2 ** 2))))
plane_normal_vector/2 / (square-root (((plane_normal_vector/1 ** 2) + (plane_normal_vector/2 ** 2))))
]
O: [0 0]
A: reduce [- tmp/2
tmp/1
]
B: reduce [tmp/2 0 - tmp/1]
C: reduce [tmp/1 * len_queue_t
tmp/2 * len_queue_t
]
L: reduce [- axis_vector/1 0 - axis_vector/2]
append diagram/plot [pen black]
diagram/trace_line A B
diagram/trace_line O C
diagram/trace_line O L
]
]
>> o: orientation/new [0.375471 -0.866153 -0.32985 0.669867 0.499563 -0.549286 0.640547 -0.0147148 0.767778]
>> o/repr
Matrix: 0.375471 -0.866153 -0.32985 0.669867 0.499563 -0.549286 0.640547 -0.0147148 0.767778
Plane: Nm120/39/S
Line: Nm299/0
Another advantage of this way is that variables defined by the "new" method directly belongs to the object "instance" (I ran into some trouble, with the other methods, having to mention self/ sometimes, having to initialize variables or not).
I'm trying to find out how OO works in REBOL. Prototypical indeed. Yesterday I came across this page, which inspired me to the classical OO model below, without duplication of functions:
;---- Generic function for class or instance method invocation ----;
invoke: func [
obj [object!]
fun [word!]
args [block!]
][
fun: bind fun obj/.class
;---- Class method names start with a dot and instance method names don't:
unless "." = first to-string fun [args: join args obj]
apply get fun args
]
;---- A class definition ----;
THIS-CLASS: context [
.class: self ; the class refers to itself
;---- Class method: create new instance ----;
.new: func [x' [integer!] /local obj] [
obj: context [x: x' .class: none] ; this is the object definition
obj/.class: self/.class ; the object will refer to the class
; it belongs to
return obj
]
;---- An instance method (last argument must be the instance itself) ----;
add: func [y obj] [
return obj/x + y
]
]
Then you can do this:
;---- First instance, created from its class ----;
this-object: THIS-CLASS/.new 1
print invoke this-object 'add [2]
;---- Second instance, created from from a prototype ----;
that-object: this-object/.class/.new 2
print invoke that-object 'add [4]
;---- Third instance, created from from a prototype in another way ----;
yonder-object: invoke that-object '.new [3]
print invoke yonder-object 'add [6]
;---- Fourth instance, created from from a prototype in a silly way ----;
silly-object: yonder-object/.class/.class/.class/.class/.new 4
print silly-object/.class/add 8 silly-object
print this-object/.class/add 8 silly-object
print THIS-CLASS/add 8 silly-object
(It works in REBOL 2, and prints 3, 6, 9, 12, 12, 12 successively.) Hardly any overhead. Probably it won't be difficult to find a dozen of other solutions. Exactly that is the real problem: there are too many ways to do it. (Maybe we'd better use LoyalScript.)
I'm looking for a way to find the type of a variable in Tcl. For example if I have the variable $a and I want to know whether it is an integer.
I have been using the following so far:
if {[string is boolean $a]} {
#do something
}
and this seems to work great for the following types:
alnum, alpha, ascii, boolean, control, digit, double, false, graph, integer, lower, print, punct, space, true, upper, wordchar, xdigit
However it is not capable to tell me if my variable might be an array, a list or a dictionary. Does anyone know of a way to tell if a variable is either of those three?
Tcl's variables don't have types (except for whether or not they're really an associative array of variables — i.e., using the $foo(bar) syntax — for which you use array exists) but Tcl's values do. Well, somewhat. Tcl can mutate values between different types as it sees fit and does not expose this information[*]; all you can really do is check whether a value conforms to a particular type.
Such conformance checks are done with string is (where you need the -strict option, for ugly historical reasons):
if {[string is integer -strict $foo]} {
puts "$foo is an integer!"
}
if {[string is list $foo]} { # Only [string is] where -strict has no effect
puts "$foo is a list! (length: [llength $foo])"
if {[llength $foo]&1 == 0} {
# All dictionaries conform to lists with even length
puts "$foo is a dictionary! (entries: [dict size $foo])"
}
}
Note that all values conform to the type of strings; Tcl's values are always serializable.
[EDIT from comments]: For JSON serialization, it's possible to use dirty hacks to produce a “correct” serialization (strictly, putting everything in a string would be correct from Tcl's perspective but that's not precisely helpful to other languages) with Tcl 8.6. The code to do this, originally posted on Rosetta Code is:
package require Tcl 8.6
proc tcl2json value {
# Guess the type of the value; deep *UNSUPPORTED* magic!
regexp {^value is a (.*?) with a refcount} \
[::tcl::unsupported::representation $value] -> type
switch $type {
string {
# Skip to the mapping code at the bottom
}
dict {
set result "{"
set pfx ""
dict for {k v} $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $k] ": " [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "}"]
}
list {
set result "\["
set pfx ""
foreach v $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "\]"]
}
int - double {
return [expr {$value}]
}
booleanString {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
default {
# Some other type; do some guessing...
if {$value eq "null"} {
# Tcl has *no* null value at all; empty strings are semantically
# different and absent variables aren't values. So cheat!
return $value
} elseif {[string is integer -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is double -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is boolean -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
}
}
# For simplicity, all "bad" characters are mapped to \u... substitutions
set mapped [subst -novariables [regsub -all {[][\u0000-\u001f\\""]} \
$value {[format "\\\\u%04x" [scan {& } %c]]}]]
return "\"$mapped\""
}
Warning: The above code is not supported. It depends on dirty hacks. It's liable to break without warning. (But it does work. Porting to Tcl 8.5 would require a tiny C extension to read out the type annotations.)
[*] Strictly, it does provide an unsupported interface for discovering the current type annotation of a value in 8.6 — as part of ::tcl::unsupported::representation — but that information is in a deliberately human-readable form and subject to change without announcement. It's for debugging, not code. Also, Tcl uses rather a lot of different types internally (e.g., cached command and variable names) that you won't want to probe for under normal circumstances; things are rather complex under the hood…
The other answers all provide very useful information, but it's worth noting something that a lot of people don't seem to grok at first.
In Tcl, values don't have a type... they question is whether they can be used as a given type. You can think about it this way
string is integer $a
You're not asking
Is the value in $a an integer
What you are asking is
Can I use the value in $a as an integer
Its useful to consider the difference between the two questions when you're thinking along the lines of "is this an integer". Every integer is also a valid list (of one element)... so it can be used as either and both string is commands will return true (as will several others for an integer).
If you want to deal with JSON then I highly suggest you read the JSON page on the Tcl wiki: http://wiki.tcl.tk/json.
On that page I posted a simple function that compiles Tcl values to JSON string given a formatting descriptor. I also find the discussion on that page very informative.
For arrays you want array exists
for dicts you want dict exists
for a list I don't think there is a built in way prior to 8.5?, there is this from http://wiki.tcl.tk/440
proc isalist {string} {
return [expr {0 == [catch {llength $string}]}]
}
To determine if a variable is an array:
proc is_array {var} {
upvar 1 $var value
if {[catch {array names $value} errmsg]} { return 1 }
return 0
}
# How to use it
array set ar {}
set x {1 2 3}
puts "ar is array? [is_array ar]"; # ar is array? 1
puts "x is array? [is_array x]"; # x is array? 0
For the specific case of telling if a value is usable as a dictionary, tcllib's dicttool package has a dict is_dict <value> command that returns a true value if <value> can act as one.
When typing in rebol console
do read http://askcodegeneration.com/csharp/simple-class/
I get get-access-modifier called twice:
Access modifier:
1. private: member can be accessed only by code in the same class
2. protected: member can be accessed only by code in the same class or in a derived class
3. internal: member can be accessed only by code in the same assembly
4. public: member can be accessed by code in the same assembly or another assembly that references it choice (by default 1):
Access modifier:
1. private: member can be accessed only by code in the same class
2. protected: member can be accessed only by code in the same class or in a derived class
3. internal: member can be accessed only by code in the same assembly
4. public: member can be accessed by code in the same assembly or another assembly that references it choice (by default 1):
Whereas it is only mentioned once in the source code:
append fields-template-output form reduce [
(to-word get-access-modifier) field-layout
]
I really can't see why, can you ?
Original code here (Internet Archive)
Yes. There is only one call to it, but it's inside of a foreach. Your default is two fields, so you get asked twice. Enter more, you'll get asked more.
While you could (and probably should) do the obvious thing of saving it in a variable, Rebol has other ways. For instance you could compose the block of code:
foreach field-layout fields-layout COMPOSE/DEEP [
append fields-template-output " "
append fields-template-output form reduce [
to-word (get-access-modifier) field-layout
]
append fields-template-output ";"
append fields-template-output newline
]
The composition runs once, looks deep for the parentheses in the block, and evaluates the code. (Kind of how parse does when it sees parentheses). The rest is left alone. So the block with the substitutions done is what's passed into FOREACH to run the loop.
Just a nuance of how you could have a call that appears to be inside a loop and yet is executed only once. I wouldn't suggest using it for something like this.
What I would suggest is studying making things less redundant in your code, by learning some more Rebol primitives like REJOIN...which builds a series out of a block. The series type will match whatever the first type it sees is (or a string if the first element is not a series):
modifier: get-access-modifier ;-- called only once, stored in variable
foreach field-layout fields-layout [
append fields-template-output rejoin [
" "
(to-string modifier)
field-layout
";"
newline
]
]
To solve the problem I have used static var to detect that it is executed only once (thanks to Sunanda tips is it possible to have static variable inside a rebol function? ).
ask-params: function [config-file [file!] default-class-name default-fields] [
;config-file: %askcodegeneration.com/csharp/simple-class/simple-class.params.txt
either value? 'class-name [
ans: ask rejoin ["class name" " (by default " class-name ")" ": "]
if ans <> "" [class-name: ans]
][
class-name: default-class-name
ans: ask rejoin [{class name (default "} class-name {"): }]
if ans <> "" [class-name: ans]
]
either exists? it: config-file [
params-block: copy load it
][
params-block: []
]
either res: find params-block class-name [
fields: pick res 2
print [ class-name "found in" it]
][
fields: default-fields
ans: ask rejoin [{fields (by default } {"} fields {"} {): }]
if ans <> "" [fields: ans]
new-param: reduce [
mold class-name
mold fields
]
either not exists? config-file [
create-directory "askcodegeneration.com/csharp/simple-class/"
write/append config-file reform new-param
][
write/append config-file reform [newline new-param]
]
]
append ret-value: [] class-name
append ret-value fields
ret-value
]