I want to modify the behavior of some function without being the author of that function. What I control is that I can ask the author to follow some pattern, e.g. use a base class, use a certain decorator, property etc.
If in python, I would use a decorator to change the behavior of a method.
As an example, My goal: Improve code coverage by automatically testing over multiple input data.
Pseudo code:
#implementation SomeTestSuiteClass
// If in python, I would add a decorator here to change the behavior of the following method
-(void)testSample1 {
input = SpecialProvider();
output = FeatureToTest(input);
SpecialAssert(output);
}
#end
What I want: During test, the testSample1 method will be called multiple times. Each time, the SpecialProvider will emit a different input data. Same for the SpecialAssert, which can verify the output corresponding to the given input.
SpecialProvider and SpecialAssert will be API under my control/ownership (i.e. I write them).
The SomeTestSuiteClass together with the testSample1 will be written by the user (i.e. test writer).
Is there a way for Objective-C to achieve "what I want" above?
You could mock objects and/or its methods using objective-c runtime or some third party frameworks. I discourage it though. That is a sign of poor architecture choices in the 1st place. The main problem in your approach are hidden dependencies in your code directly referencing
SpecialProvider & SpecialAssert symbols directly.
A much better way to this would be like this:
-(void)testSample1:(SpecialProvider*)provider assert:(BOOL (^)(parameterTypes))assertBlock {
input = provider;
output = FeatureToTest(input);
if (assertBlock != nil) {
assertBlock(output);
}
}
Since Objective-c does not support default argument values like Swift does you could emulate it with:
-(void)testSample1 {
[self testSample1:DefaultSpecialProvider() assert:DefaultAssert()];
}
not to call the explicit -(void)testSample1:(SpecialProvider*)provider assert:(BOOL (^)(parameterTypes))assertBlock all the time, however in tests you would always use the explicit 2 argument variant to allow substituting the implementation(s) not being under test.
Further improvement idea:
Put the SpecialProvider and SpecialAssert behind protocols(i.e. equivalent of interfaces in other programming languages) so you can easily exchange the implementation.
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.
Now I have an import(a) function, that in short words dofile's header in .framework like this:
import("<Kakao/KARect>") => dofile("/System/Library/Frameworks/Kakao.framework/Headers/KARect.lua")
And in KARect.lua for example I have:
KARect = {}
function KARect:new(_x, _y, _width, _height, _colorBack)
local new = setmetatable({}, {__index = self})
new.id = KAEntities:generateID()
...
return new
end
function KARect:draw()
...
end
After some time I thought about reworking this system and making "headers" work like typical Lua modules with advanced require() so function will do e.g.:
import("<Kakao/KARect>") => package.path = "/System/Library/Frameworks/Kakao.framework/Headers/?.lua"; KARect = require("KARect")
and file will contain:
local KARect = {}
...
return KARect
Because headers should not contain anything but only classes with their names? I'm getting confused when thinking about it, as I never used Obj C :s
I never used Obj C
Then why are you trying to implement its headers in a language, that does not use headers at all?
Header! What is a header?
Header files in C-like languages store more than just a name. They store constants and macro commands, function and class method argument and return types, structure and class fields. In essence, the contents of the header file are forward declarations. They came into existence due to the need to perform the same forward-declarations across many files.
I don't know what additional rules and functions were added to header files in Obj-C, but you can get general understanding of what they do in the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4 with the last one being the most spot-on.
Answer to the question present
Lua is dynamically-typed interpreted language. It does not do compile time type checks and, typically, Lua programs can and should be structured in a way that does not need forward declarations across files. So there is no meaningful way for a programmer to create and for lua bytecode generator and interpreter to use header files.
Lua does not have classes at all. The code you've posted is a syntactic sugar for an assignment of a function with a slightly different signature to a table which imitates class:
KARect.new = function( first_arg_is_self, _x, _y, _width, _height, _colorBack)
local new = setmetatable({}, {__index = first_arg_is_self})
return new
end
There is no declarations here, only generation of an anonymous function and its assignment to a field in a table. Other parts of program do not need to know anything about a particular field, variable or function (which is stored in variable) in advance (unlike C).
So, no declaration means nothing to separate from implementation. You of course can first list fields of the class-table and do dummy assignments to them, but, again, Lua will have no use for those. If you want to give hints to humans, it is probably better to write a dedicated manual or put comments in the implementation.
Lua has situations where forward declarations are needed to reference local functions. But this situation does not arise in object oriented code, as all methods are accessed through reference to the object, and by the time first object is created, the class itself is usually fully constructed.
Inside an Objective-C method, it is possible to get the selector of the method with the keyword _cmd. Does such a thing exist for the names of arguments?
For example, if I have a method declared as such:
- (void)methodWithAnArgument:(id)foo {
...
}
Is there some sort of construct that would allow me to get access to some sort of string-like representation of the variable name? That is, not the value of foo, but something that actually reflects the variable name "foo" in a local variable inside the method.
This information doesn't appear to be stored in NSInvocation or any of its related classes (NSMethodSignature, etc), so I'm not optimistic this can be done using Apple's frameworks or the runtime. I suspect it might be possible with some sort of compile-time macro, but I'm unfamiliar with C macros so I wouldn't know where to begin.
Edit to contain more information about what I'm actually trying to do.
I'm building a tool to help make working with third-party URL schemes easier. There are two sides to how I want my API to look:
As a consumer of a URL scheme, I can call a method like [twitterHandler showUserWithScreenName:#"someTwitterHandle"];
As a creator of an app with a URL scheme, I can define my URLs in a plist dictionary, whose key-value pairs look something like #"showUserWithScreenName": #"twitter://user?screenName={screenName}".
What I'm working on now is finding the best way to glue these together. The current fully-functioning implementation of showUserWithScreenName: looks something like this:
- (void)showUserWithScreenName:(NSString *)screenName {
[self performCommand:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) withArguments:#{#"screenName": screenName}];
}
Where performCommand:withArguments: is a method that (besides some other logic) looks up the command key in the plist (in this case "showUserWithScreenName:") and evaluates the value as a template using the passed dictionary as the values to bind.
The problem I'm trying to solve: there are dozens of methods like this that look exactly the same, but just swap out the dictionary definition to contain the correct template params. In every case, the desired dictionary key is the name of the parameter. I'm trying to find a way to minimize my boilerplate.
In practice, I assume I'm going to accept that there will be some boilerplate needed, but I can probably make it ever-so-slightly cleaner thanks to NSDictionaryOfVariableBindings (thanks #CodaFi — I wasn't familiar with that macro!). For the sake of argument, I'm curious if it would be possible to completely metaprogram this using something like forwardInvocation:, which as far as I can tell would require some way to access parameter names.
You can use componentsSeparatedByString: with a : after you get the string from NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) and use your #selector's argument names to put the arguments in the correct order.
You can also take a look at this post, which is describing the method naming conventions in Objective C
If you take this method call for instance(from other post)
- (int)methodName:(int)arg1 withArg2:(int)arg2
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Is withArg2 actually ever used for anything inside this method ?
withArg2 is part of the method name (it is usually written without arguments as methodName:withArg2: if you want to refer to the method in the documentation), so no, it is not used for anything inside the method.
As Tamás points out, withArg2 is part of the method name. If you write a function with the exact same name in C, it will look like this:
int methodNamewithArg2(int arg1, int arg2)
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Coming from other programming languages, the Objective-C syntax at first might appear weird, but after a while you will start to understand how it makes your whole code more expressive. If you see the following C++ function call:
anObject.subString("foobar", 2, 3, true);
and compare it to a similar Objective-C method invocation
[anObject subString:"foobar" startingAtCharacter:2 numberOfCharacters:3 makeResultUpperCase:YES];
it should become clear what I mean. The example may be contrived, but the point is to show that embedding the meaning of the next parameter into the method name allows to write very readable code. Even if you choose horrible variable names or use literals (as in the example above), you will still be able to make sense of the code without having to look up the method documentation.
You would call this method as follows:
int i=[self methodName:arg1 withArg2:arg2];
This is just iOs's way of making the code easier to read.
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.