I am writing a native plugin that, in some cases, has to call functions in the Flutter portion of the app, written in Dart.
How it's achieved, is explained here:
https://flutter.io/platform-channels/
Furthermore, an example of invoking a method from the native/platform part towards the Dart/non-native is here:
https://github.com/flutter/plugins/tree/master/packages/quick_actions
Now, this example is really nice in case the platform only needs to invoke a method, i.e. that call returns nothing/void, but in case it needs to invoke a function, i.e. needs a return value from the non-native/Dart part, I could not have found an example or documentation on the internet. I believe it can be implemented though, because in the native Java part, there is a method:
public void invokeMethod(String method, Object arguments, MethodChannel.Result callback)
So, there is a callback object that could have a return value from the non-native part - or, I am mistaken here, and there is currently no way of returning a value from the non-native Dart portion of the app?
The signature is void setMethodCallHandler(Future<dynamic> handler(MethodCall call)), so we need to provide a function at the Dart end that returns Future<dynamic>, for example _channel.setMethodCallHandler(myUtilsHandler);
Then implement the handler. This one handles two methods foo and bar returning respectively String and double.
Future<dynamic> myUtilsHandler(MethodCall methodCall) async {
switch (methodCall.method) {
case 'foo':
return 'some string';
case 'bar':
return 123.0;
default:
throw MissingPluginException('notImplemented');
}
}
At the Java end the return value is passed to the success method of the Result callback.
channel.invokeMethod("foo", arguments, new Result() {
#Override
public void success(Object o) {
// this will be called with o = "some string"
}
#Override
public void error(String s, String s1, Object o) {}
#Override
public void notImplemented() {}
});
In Swift, the return value is an Any? passed to the result closure. (Not implemented is signaled by the any parameter being the const NSObject value FlutterMethodNotImplemented.)
channel.invokeMethod("foo", arguments: args, result: {(r:Any?) -> () in
// this will be called with r = "some string" (or FlutterMethodNotImplemented)
})
Related
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.
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
For example I'm having a class with three overloaded methods like this:
class MyClass
{
int sum(int i)
{
// Method implementation.
}
int sum(string x)
{
// Method implementation.
}
int sum(object o)
{
// Method implementation.
}
}
My question is when I call the sum method of MyClass by passing any value (integer, string or object) it should invoke only third method (with object type input parameter)
class MainClass
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
obj.sum(10);
obj.sum("X")
}
}
You said "without type casting" but you can't, because you need some way to indicate to the compiler which version to call, and the runtime uses the type it sees to do that bit. Boxing the int as an object means the compiler will pick the object version
sum(1);//call int version
sum((object)1); //call object version
sum((string)(object)"1"); //call string version
sum((object)(int)(object)1); //call object version
First of all, let me say that if you sometimes want to call one version of the sum function when working with ints and sometimes want to call another, overloading probably isn't the right tool to use. Overloading works best when you are implementing conceptually the same operation for a number of different types, and you want the compiler to figure out automatically which function is the right one to call for each type; if you need more manual control over which function is called, you're probably better off using different names.
That said, if you're sure that this is what you want to do, you could implement the overloaded version for object in terms of another function in the public interface, as in:
class MyClass
{
int sum(int i)
{
// Method implementation.
}
int sum(string x)
{
// Method implementation.
}
int sum(object o)
{
sum_object(o);
}
int sum_object(object o)
{
// Method implementation for objects
}
}
Then, when you want to apply the object version to int and string objects, you just call sum_object directly instead.
What is the difference between these two as per Mockito -
Mockito.when(serviceObject.myMethod(Customer.class)).thenThrow(new
RuntimeException());
and
Customer customer = new Customer();
Mockito.when(serviceObject.myMethod(customer)).thenThrow(new
RuntimeException());
And if both serve the same purpose then using which one is considered to be best practice?
There is a misunderstanding on your side - that method specification myMethod(SomeClass.class) is only possible when the signature of that method allows for a class parameter. Like:
Whatever myMethod(Object o) {
or directly
Whatever myMethod(Class<X> clazz) {
In other words: it is not Mockito that does something special about a parameter that happens to be of class Class!
Thus your first option is not something that works "in general". Example: I put down this code in a unit test:
static class Inner {
public int foo(String s) { return 5; }
}
#Test
public void testInner() {
Inner mocked = mock(Inner.class);
when(mocked.foo(Object.class)).thenReturn(4);
System.out.println(mocked.foo(""));
}
And guess what - the above does not compile. Because foo() doesn't allow for a Class parameter. We can rewrite to
static class Inner {
public int foo(Object o) { return 5; }
}
#Test
public void testInner() {
Inner mocked = mock(Inner.class);
when(mocked.foo(Object.class)).thenReturn(4);
System.out.println(mocked.foo(""));
}
And now the above compiles - but prints 0 (zero) when invoked. Because the above would be the same as mocked.foo(eq(Object.class)). In other words: when your method signature allows for passing a Class instance and you then pass a class instance, that is a simple mocking specification for mockito. In my example: when the incoming object would be Object.class - then 4 would be returned. But the incoming object is "" - therefore the Mockito default kicks in and 0 is returned.
I am with the other answer here - I think you are mixing up that older versions of Mockito asked you to write down when(mocked.foo(any(ExpectedClass.class))) - which can nowadays be written as when(mocked.foo(any())). But when(mocked.foo(ExpectedClass.class)) is not a Mockito construct - it is a simple method specification that gives a specific object to "match on" - and that specific object happens to be an instance of class Class.
First one which uses generic Customer class to match type can also be written as:
Mockito.when(serviceObject.myMethod(Mockito.any(Customer.class))).thenThrow(new
RuntimeException());
In case of the second one, you are passing the actual object that will be used in stubbing.
Usage:
If your method myMethod throws the exception based on the state of the Customer object then you can use the latter approach, where you can set the state of the Customer object appropriately.
However If your method myMethod does not depend on the Customer object to throw the exception rather you need it only to pass it as an argument just to invoke the method, then you can take the former approach.
In languages like Scala, one can have multiple definitions for one method name by changing the number of parameters and/or the type of the parameters of the method. This is called method overloading.
How is that different from multiple dispatch?
Thank you
Method overloading is resolved at compile time.
Multiple dispatch is resolved at runtime.
When using double dispatch the called method depends on the actual type of receiver and arguments. Method overloading however, only allows the called method to depend on the declared type of the parameters. Why? Java binds method calls at compile time with their full signature (early binding). The full signature includes all parameter types, hence when the actual type of an argument differs at runtime (polymoprhism), overloading does not work as you might expect!
void add(Foo o) { ... }
void add(Bar o) { ... }
void client() {
Foo o = new Bar();
add(o); // calls add(Foo) not add(Bar)!
}
using multiple dispatch however
void add(Foo o) { o.dispatch(this); }
void add(Bar o) { o.dispatch(this); }
void client() {
Foo o = new Bar();
add(o); // calls #dispatch as defined in Bar!
}
Things might slightly differ in Scala, though the general distinction should be the same as presented here in all programming languages.