I am creating a custom IntelliJ plugin (following the IntelliJ tutorial) that implements a custom Run Configuration. My plugin will "run" the contents the open file in the editor on a remote server and display the result in IntelliJ (sort of a script playground). I used the IntelliJ GUI Designer to create the form and it shows up in the Edit Run Configuration, however it shows up under 2 tabs (Configuration and Startup/Configuration) .. neither of which I explicitly define, I assume they come from my extending of RunConfigurationBase?.
public class RunConfigurationImpl extends RunConfigurationBase {
public RunConfigurationImpl(Project project, ConfigurationFactory factory, String name) {
super(project, factory, name);
}
#NotNull
#Override
public SettingsEditor<? extends RunConfiguration> getConfigurationEditor() {
return new SettingsEditorImpl();
}
#Nullable
#Override
public SettingsEditor<ConfigurationPerRunnerSettings> getRunnerSettingsEditor(ProgramRunner runner) {
return null;
}
#Override
public void checkConfiguration() throws RuntimeConfigurationException {
}
#Nullable
#Override
public RunProfileState getState(#NotNull Executor executor, #NotNull ExecutionEnvironment executionEnvironment) throws ExecutionException {
return null;
}
}
The first tab is fine (Configuration) ..
However I do not want to list the same fields again on the Startup/Connection tab, in fact, I'm happy to just do away with this tab -- or really, I don't care which tab I get rid off, I just
want the fields to show once.
Any pointers on how to get rid of this tab?
See com.intellij.execution.configurations.RunConfiguration#getRunnerSettingsEditor It returns null by default so let it stay null, don’t override it.
This is a consolidation of Vassiliy's answer and ensuing comments.
In order to remove the Startup/Connection tab in the custom Run Configuration UI, ensure that null is being returned from the methods getRunnerSettingsEditor() custom the classes that extends com.intellij.execution.configurations.RunConfiguration and com.intellij.execution.runners.ProgramRunner
By default the API abstract classes return null for these methods, so make sure you are not overriding them.
Related
I have an eclipse plugin. I want to add a new preference to this particular plugin. The type of preference is just a true/false kind of behavior which can be achieved with just a checkbox.
I have created this class
``
import org.eclipse.jface.preference.FieldEditorPreferencePage;
import org.eclipse.jface.preference.BooleanFieldEditor;
import org.eclipse.ui.IWorkbench;
import org.eclipse.ui.IWorkbenchPreferencePage;
import XXXXXXXXXX.MyPlugin;
/**
* Preference page
*/
public class MyPreferencePage extends FieldEditorPreferencePage implements IWorkbenchPreferencePage {
public MyPreferencePage() {
super(GRID);
setPreferenceStore(MyPlugin.getDefault().getPreferenceStore());
setDescription(Messages.MyPreferencePage_PREFERENCES_DESCRIPTION);
}
/**
* Creates the field editors. Field editors are abstractions of the common GUI blocks needed to
* manipulate various types of preferences. Each field editor knows how to save and restore
* itself.
*/
#Override
public void createFieldEditors() {
addField(new BooleanFieldEditor(PreferenceConstants.SHOW_REPORT,
Messages.MyPreferencePage_SHOW_REPORT, getFieldEditorParent()));
}
#Override
public void init(IWorkbench workbench) {
}
}
``
I have updated the extensions tab of plugin.xml accordingly.
Build is successful and I can see my newly created preference under windows -> preference. But when I click it, I can only see the description of the plugin. The boolean field which I have added is missing on the preference page.
Please help me in understanding what went wrong.
I'm trying to port Test Management For Jira JUnit Integration to JUnit5. This module generates a JSON report of the test run and associates the results with Jira tickets by using annotations on the test methods, example.
From the TestExecutionListener I'm not sure what the best approach to retrieve the TestCase annotation is.
I looked at Reflection using the TestIdentifier.getSource and doing manipulations to rebuild the method signature and extracting the annotation from there but the approach felt clumsy.
I came across this post Allow extensions to register TestExecutionListeners which proposed the following:
Proposal: Have your extension publish the WebDriver bean's session id, e.g.
String sessionId = ...;
extensionContext.publishReportEntry("webDriverSessionId", sessionId)
In your TestExecutionListener, implement reportingEntryPublished and store it in a Map with the TestIdentifier as a key. In executionFinished report the test outcome along with the value from this Map.
This approach looks promising but I want to make sure there isn't another way that doesn't require both an extension and a test execution listener. Is there a way to retrieve test method annotation information directly in the TestExecutionListener?
#Alex, the following might be used inside the listener...
((MethodSource) testIdentifier.source).javaMethod.getAnnotation(TestCase.class)
Seems like you can't get test annotation from TestExecutionListener but instead you can implement TestWatcher or e.g AfterEachCallback and get custom annotation value like that:
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.AfterEachCallback;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtensionContext;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.TestWatcher;
public class MyExtention implements TestWatcher, AfterEachCallback {
#Override public void testSuccessful(ExtensionContext context) {
if (context.getElement().isPresent() && context.getElement().get().isAnnotationPresent(MyCustomAnnotation.class)) {
int val = context.getElement().get().getAnnotation(MyCustomAnnotation.class).value();
// Report on success
}
}
#Override public void afterEach(ExtensionContext context) throws Exception {
if (context.getElement().isPresent() && context.getElement().get().isAnnotationPresent(MyCustomAnnotation.class)) {
int val = context.getElement().get().getAnnotation(MyCustomAnnotation.class).value();
// Report each
}
}
}
I have a test class that has several tests. At the moment I have this to start up the server, wipe the database etc:
#ClassRule
public static final DropwizardAppRule<ServiceConfig> RULE =
new DropwizardAppRule<ServiceConfig>(ServiceApp.class, ResourceHelpers.resourceFilePath("config.yml"));
All my tests work with this individually. But when I run them all together some fail since other tests modify data. I tried doing the following but I'm getting null pointers when calling RULE.getPort():
#ClassRule
public static DropwizardAppRule<ServiceConfig> RULE;
#Before
public void beforeClass() {
RULE = new DropwizardAppRule<ServiceConfig>(ServiceApp.class, ResourceHelpers.resourceFilePath("config.yml"));
}
I would have expected this to work but it doesn't seem to set the values of RULE properly. Any ideas?
Hi,
I don't know how to handle db "from within" DropwizardAppRule, so I may not really answer your question... I'm actually having another issue myself trying with DropwizardAppRule not properly being setup and torn down between tests. (So if you made progress going this way I'd like you insights).
Anyway, I think you need to handle your DB outside DropwizardAppRule and give it in the Rule. We resolved DB clearing by relying on custom and external TestsRules:
public class CockpitApplicationRule implements TestRule {
public static class App extends CockpitApplication<CockpitConfiguration> {
// only needed because of generics
}
public final DropwizardAppRule<CockpitConfiguration> dw;
public final EmbeddedDatabaseRule db;
public CockpitApplicationRule(String config, ConfigOverride... configOverrides) {
this.db = EmbeddedDatabaseRule.builder()
.initializedByPlugin(LiquibaseInitializer.builder().withChangelogResource("migrations.xml").build())
.build();
this.dw = new DropwizardAppRule<>(App.class, ResourceHelpers.resourceFilePath(config),
ConfigOverride.config("database.url", () -> this.db.getConnectionJdbcUrl()));
}
#Override
#Nullable
public Statement apply(#Nullable Statement base, #Nullable Description description) {
assert base != null;
assert description != null;
return RulesHelper.chain(base, description, dw, RulesHelper.dropDbAfter(db), db);
}
public DSLContext db() {
return DSL.using(db.getConnectionJdbcUrl());
}
}
Basically we override TestRule apply(...) to chain custom Statements. There's our RulesHelper if you want to take a look. That way the DB is cleanly handled by the Rules, we can fill our test DB in test classes using #Before setup methods.
org.zapodot.junit.db.EmbeddedDatabaseRule Is an external dependency that allows us to rather easily instantiate a DB for our tests.
The RulesHelper.dropDbAfter does the actual cleaning:
public static TestRule dropDbAfter(EmbeddedDatabaseRule db) {
return after(() -> DSL.using(db.getConnectionJdbcUrl()).execute("DROP ALL OBJECTS"));
}
You should be able to setup and clean the DB from #Before and #After methods without fully using TestRules though, but I'm not sure it's really easier in the end.
Hope this helped !
I am trying to introduce a shortcut key(Ctrl+Shift+f) to our customized editor to format the content.
I've implememented the following changes.
Added changes to plugin xml by adding key extension with definition Id/schema/context.
Implemented Action by extending TextEditorAction class as below.
#Override
public void run() {
this.doOperation(ISourceViewer.FORMAT);
}
Implemented one Formatter class by implementing IContentFormatter.
Passed the above Formatter class to our cutsomized sourceVIewConfiguration (extends SourceViewerConfiguration) class by overriding getContentFormatter.
overrided createActions() API inside our customized editor class which extends TextEditor.
For some reason my shortcut key is not working. I put a debug point inside my action class and noticed the controller is not going there when i press on the shortcut key.
I also noticed that the newly created key is not displayed under preferences -> keys list.
Can somebody provide pointers or example to resolve the issue.
plugin.xml entries:
<key
commandId="com.language.javascripteditor.XJSFormatAction"
schemeId="myScheme"
sequence="M1+M2+z"/>
<scheme
id="myScheme"
name="myScheme">
</scheme>
Formatter class:
public class JavaScriptEditorFormatter implements IContentFormatter {
#Override
public void format(IDocument document, IRegion region) {
try {
String content =document.get(region.getOffset(), region.getLength());
String formatted = new JSBeautifier().js_beautify(content,null);
document.replace(region.getOffset(), region.getLength(), formatted);
} catch (BadLocationException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Override
public IFormattingStrategy getFormattingStrategy(String contentType) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
Added a new property file for customized schema with the name plugin_customization.ini and with the content as below
org.eclipse.ui/KEY_CONFIGURATION_ID=myScheme
Command section inside plugin.xml
<command
defaultHandler="com.cisco.nm.workflowbuilder.language.javascripteditor.XJSFormatAction"
id="com.language.javascripteditor.XJSFormatAction"
name="%action.label.format.xjs">
</command>
Instead of a handler I have written an Action class. Please let me know if this approach does not work
1.Added contributor class to extension of the existing editor.
2.Created command with an id for format.eg: com.javascript.text.format
3.written Action class with format method
#Override
public void run() {
this.doOperation(ISourceViewer.FORMAT);
}
4. plugin xml entry
<key
commandId="com.javascript.text.format"
schemeId="org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration"
sequence="M1+M2+F"/>
5. Overriden the createActions() .Inside this method instantiated the Action class and setActionDefinitionId.
I am writing a new app and I have chosen to use Java for flexibility. It is a GUI app so I will use JavaFX. This is my first time using Java but I have experience with C#.
I am getting familiar with JavaFX Properties, they look like a great way of bi-directional binding between front-end and back-end.
My code uses classes from an open-source API, and I would like to convert the members of these classes to JavaFX Properties (String => StringProperty, etc). I believe this would be transparent to any objects that refer to these members.
Is it ok to do this?
Is it the suggested way of dealing with existing classes?
What do I do about Enum types? E.g. an enum member has it's value changed, how should I connect the enum member to the front-end?
Thank you :)
In general, as long as you don't change the public API of the class - in other words you don't remove any public methods, modify their parameter types or return types, or change their functionality - you should not break any code that uses them.
So, e.g. a change from
public class Foo {
private String bar ;
public String getBar() {
return bar ;
}
public void setBar(String bar) {
this.bar = bar ;
}
}
to
public class Foo {
private final StringProperty bar = new SimpleStringProperty();
public StringProperty barProperty() {
return bar ;
}
public String getBar() {
return barProperty().get();
}
public void setBar(String bar) {
barProperty().set(bar);
}
}
should not break any clients of the class Foo. The only possible problem is that classes that have subclassed Foo and overridden getBar() and/or setBar(...) might get unexpected behavior if their superclass is replaced with the new implementation (specifically, if getBar() and setBar(...) are not final, you have no way to enforce that getBar()==barProperty().get(), which is desirable).
For enums (and other objects) you can use an ObjectProperty<>:
Given
public enum Option { FIRST_CHOICE, SECOND_CHOICE, THIRD_CHOICE }
Then you can do
public class Foo {
private final ObjectProperty<Option> option = new SimpleObjectProperty<>();
public ObjectProperty<Option> optionProperty() {
return option ;
}
public Option getOption() {
return optionProperty().get();
}
public void setOption(Option choice) {
optionProperty().set(choice);
}
}
One caveat to all this is that you do introduce a dependency on the JavaFX API that wasn't previously present in these classes. JavaFX ships with the Oracle JDK, but it is not a full part of the JSE (e.g. it is not included in OpenJDK by default, and not included in some other JSE implementations). So in practice, you're highly unlikely to be able to persuade the developers of the open source library to accept your changes to the classes in the library. Since it's open source, you can of course maintain your own fork of the library with JavaFX properties, but then it will get tricky if you want to incorporate new versions of that library (you will need to merge two different sets of changes, essentially).
Another option is to use bound properties in the classes, and wrap them using a Java Bean Property Adapter. This is described in this question.