I want to create a Developer Variable to the workspace in Blockly, but I cannot find the necessary function/method.
I do not want to create the variable over a button. The variable should be included even if there is no block in the workspace.
With these two functions I can get the already created variables:
var variables = workspace.getAllVariables();
var dev_var = Blockly.Variables.allDeveloperVariables(workspace);
But what is the setting function?
Developer variables are variables that will never be visible to the user, but will exist in the generated code. If that's what you're looking for: there's no API for it, but here are some things you can do.
If you want to reserve the name so that users can't accidentally override your variable, call yourGenerator.addReservedWords('var1,var2,...'). You can initialize the variable in your wrapper code.
If you really want Blockly to both reserve and declare the variable for you, you could override the init function on your generator.
On the other hand, if what you want is a user-visible variable that always shows up in the toolbox, without the user creating it, you should call yourWorkspace.createVariable('variable_name').
The unit test blocks all assume that the variable unittestResults exists and can be written to. To indicate this, the block definition includes the function getDeveloperVars, which returns an array of strings. Each string is a variable name.Follow this issue in gtihub
Blockly.Blocks['unittest_fail'] = {
// Always assert an error.
init: function() {
this.setColour(65);
this.setPreviousStatement(true);
this.setNextStatement(true);
this.appendDummyInput()
.appendField(new Blockly.FieldTextInput('test name'), 'MESSAGE')
.appendField('fail');
this.setTooltip('Records an error.');
},
getDeveloperVars: function() {
return ['unittestResults'];
}
};
LINK : https://github.com/google/blockly/issues/1535
Related
Does IntelliJ IDEA for Java have a refactor function that can automatically move a variable definition from within a block to outside a block and refactor the definition inside the block to be a reference.
In short, turn this:
try {
IndexResponse indexResponse = elkService.post(pipelineModel);
}
Into this:
IndexResponse indexResponse = null;
try {
indexResponse = elkService.post(pipelineModel);
}
I find myself doing this quite frequently. The "surround by" refactors are smart about this in that if do NOT yet have the surrounding element (try/catch, if/then, etc.) and the code you want to surround defines variables that are used outside the surround-bound code, it will define the variable outside the block.
What I'm trying to do is refactor code where I INTRODUCE a reference outside an already-existing block.
Not the end of the world, to do this manually, but I was wondering if such a thing exists and/or if others wished for it.
Since IntelliJ IDEA 2021.3 (EAP builds are already available) it's possible just to complete the variable outside of try block to bring it into the scope:
try {
IndexResponse indexResponse = elkService.post(pipelineModel);
}
catch(Exception exception) {}
inde|
Just start typing the variable name, then invoke the completion explicitly (with Ctrl+Space), and it will be brought into the scope automatically:
IndexResponse indexResponse = null;
try {
indexResponse = elkService.post(pipelineModel);
} catch (Exception exception) {
}
indexResponse
Disclosure: I'm IntelliJ IDEA developer responsible for implementation of this feature.
What I do is I just reference the variable outside of the block. This will of course be highlighted as an error. I can then type Alt+Enter on the error and invoke the Bring 'X x' into scope quick-fix, which will move the variable definition, but leave the assignment.
I have below code to create column:
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(validationRenderer)
and render function:
function validationRenderer(data, type, full, meta) {
.......
}
Now, I want to pass custom parameters to validationRenderer so that I can access it inside the function, like below:
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(validationRenderer('abc'))
function validationRenderer(data, type, full, meta, additionalParam) {
// do something with additionalParam
}
I could not find it in the documentation but there must be something to pass additional parameters in meta as per the reference from here
Yes, you can. Or, better, you technically can, but you may use a clever workaround to handle your issue.
I had this issue today, and found a pretty sad (but working) solution.
Basically, the big problem is that the render function is a parameter passed to the datatable handler, which is (of course) isolated.
In my case, to make a pratical example, I had to add several dynamic buttons, each with a different action, to a dynamic datatable.
Apparently, there was no solution, until I thought the following: the problem seems to be that the renderer function scope is somewhat isolated and unaccessible. However, since the "return" of the function is called only when the datatable effectively renders the field, you may wrap the render function in a custom self-invoking-anonymous-function, providing arguments there to use them once the cell is being rendered.
Here is what I did with my practical example, considering the following points:
The goal was to pass the ID field of each row to several different custom functions, so the problem was passing the ID of the button to call when the button is effectively clicked (since you can't get any external reference of it when it is rendered).
I'm using a custom class, which is the following:
hxDatatableDynamicButton = function(label, onClick, classNames) {
this.label = label;
this.onClick = onClick;
this.classNames = this.classNames || 'col5p text-center';
}
Basically, it just creates an instance that I'm later using.
In this case, consider having an array of 2 different instances of these, one having a "test" label, and the other one having a "test2" label.
I'm injecting these instances through a for loop, hence I need to pass the "i" to my datatable to know which of the buttons is being pressed.
Since the code is actually quite big (the codebase is huge), here is the relevant snippet that you need to accomplish the trick:
scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons.reverse();
scope._abstractDynamicClick = function(id, localReferenceID) {
scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[localReferenceID].onClick.call(null, id);
};
for (var i = 0; i < scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons.length; i++) {
var _localReference = scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[i];
var hax = (function(i){
var _tmp = function (data, type, full, meta) {
var _label = scope.datatableAdditionalActionButtons[i].label;
return '<button class="btn btn-default" ng-click="_abstractDynamicClick('+full.id+', '+i+')">'+_label+'</button>';
}
return _tmp;
})(i);
dtColumns.unshift(DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).notSortable().renderWith(hax).withClass(_localReference.classNames));
}
So, where is the trick? the trick is entirely in the hax function, and here is why it works: instead of passing the regular renderWith function prototype, we are using a "custom" render, which has the same arguments (hence same parameters) as the default one. However, it is isolated in a self invoking anonymous function, which allows us to arbitrarely inject a parameter inside it and, so, allows us to distinguish, when rendering, which "i" it effectively is, since the isolated scope of the function is never lost in this case.
Basically, the output is as follow:
And the inspection actually shows that elements are effectively rendered differently, hence each "i" is being rendered properly, while it wouldn't have if the function wouldn't have been wrapped in a self invoking anonymous function:
So, basically, in your case, you would do something like this:
var _myValidator = (function(myAbcParam){
var _validate = function (data, type, full, meta) {
console.log("additional param is: ", myAbcParam); // logs "abc"
return '<button id="'+myAbcParam+'">Hello!</button>'; // <-- renders id ="abc"
}
return _validate ;
})('abc');
DTColumnBuilder.newColumn(null).withTitle('Validation').renderWith(_myValidator);
// <-- note that _myValidator is passed instead of "_myValidator()", since it is already executed and already returns a function.
I know this is not exactly the answer someone may be expecting, but if you need to accomplish something that complex in datatable it really looks like the only possible way to do this is using a self invoking anonymous function.
Hope this helps someone who is still having issues with this.
I know you're not supposed to do this, but I'm trying to write some tests with legacy code still using requirejs that have a few window variables floating around.
Basically I'm trying to write a mocha test and include some predefined global variables that a different file would use later. I'm trying to do the following, but it seems the global variable "container" isn't populated when accessing it later.
global.document = require('jsdom').jsdom('<html></html>');
global.window = document.defaultView;
global.$ = require('jquery')(window);
// this should be available everywhere as far as I can tell...
global.container= {};
global.window.container= global.container;
// legacy scripts still using requirejs, so we need to load the require config here
var requirejs = require('testing-setup').requirejs;
// chai is nice
require('chai').should();
describe('model tests', function () {
var model;
// before we begin the tests, we need to require in all the necessary modules
before(function (done) {
window.container= {
dateFormat: false
};
requirejs(['Model', 'common', 'date'], function (Model) {
// load some dummy data out of a file
model= new Model(require('./test-data.js').item);
done();
});
});
// run some more tests down here, I'll spare you those
});
The script being loaded called "common" above has a reference to the global "container" object that lives on the window. Apparently what I have is not correct. Is there no way to set up a shared global variable in jsdom? I know it's not the standard way of doing things, so please spare the lectures. Refactoring all that legacy code right now is not really a feasible option.
Ah, it turns out this is the correct way of doing it. It appears the jsdom/nodejs differentiate the difference between window and global. If you want something to be available everywhere in every file in that session, it needs to be on the global namespace. The window is explicitly window.
I have a LESS Mixin called in different stylesheets (i.e. one for each breakpoint controlled by media queries). In each stylesheet it is called with different parameter value such as:
"mobile.less":
.mixin(1);
"tablet.less":
.mixin(2);
.....
The mixin is defined (for example) as:
.mixin(#parameter) when (#parameter = 1)
{
body
{
font-style:italic;
}
.......
}
.mixin(#parameter) when (#parameter = 2)
{
.......
}
I'm developing a demo website so I wish that users could change this values on-the-fly changing value that is passed as parameter using a form field.
I tried the following method:
less.modifyVars({'#parameter' : <value from form field>});
But it would work only if #parameter is a "global" variable, not a passed parameter through the call...... Is there a method to change also passed parameters?
Thank you.
Original Answer
Yes, just make the variable outside the scope of the mixins but still use it in the guard expression. Something like:
#parameter: 1;
.mixin() when (#parameter = 1) {
body {
font-style:italic;
}
}
.mixin() when (#parameter = 2) {
body {
font-style:normal;
}
}
.mixin();
This generates the 1 code. If the variable gets set to 2, it generates the 2 code, etc.
Discussion of "re-process on the fly called mixins"
With reference to your comment, to my knowledge there is no way to directly re-process the local variable of a mixin call without doing something to the mixin definition itself to allow for it. So in your example, if "mobile.less" has a .mixin(1); call, how can you reprocess it to be, say, .mixin(4) based on user input. If you have not set up the call with a variable to begin with, then there is not way to "modify" the 1 in the original call. However, setting up with a variable call to begin with is really just a longer version of the answer I give above. Consider that this code essentially does the same as the above, only with more coding involved:
LESS Mixins Defined
.mixin(#parameter) when (#parameter = 1) {
body {
font-style:italic;
}
}
.mixin(#parameter) when (#parameter = 2) {
body {
font-style:normal;
}
}
Calls it in Files
//mobile.less
#parameter: 1;
.mixin(#parameter);
//tablet.less
#parameter: 2;
.mixin(#parameter);
Notice that we are still working with a "global" #parameter variable that is just being passed in as a "local" variable of the same name to the mixins. So all we gain here is more code (the addition of the local variable) to do the same thing.
Now assuming you are really after modifying the final output css behavior through the user input, then you may be able to "override" by a later call. This assumes that all the same properties, selectors are set by the various mixin calls, just to different values. So let us assume .mixin(1) is still in "mobile.less", you could set up a "reset.less" file that is called on user input to override by the css cascade.
LESS Mixin Definition Added
.mixin(#parameter) when (#parameter = 0) {
//purposefully empty, used as default for reset.less
}
Calls in your current "mobile.less" etc. remain as they are. You can have a global value of #parameter: 0; set in your global "variables.less" file, and then "reset.less" is this:
//reset.less
.mixin(#parameter);
That way "reset.less" outputs nothing by default (using the mixin definition just done above). This "reset.less" file is put last in the html processing so that it follows any "mobile.less" stylesheets, etc. Then, when the user changes #parameter, the "reset.less" is updated with the new values, and it does output css, which, by virtue of the css cascade, overrides the values of "mobile.less" etc.
I am working on a library to allow Lua (5.2) scripting of games in iOS 5.x. I have created a class and added bindings to allow it to be created and accessed form Lua. The C initializer method called from Lua is given below:
static int newGeminiObject(lua_State *L){
GeminiObject *go = [[GeminiObject alloc] initWithLuaState:L];
GeminiObject **lgo = (GeminiObject **)lua_newuserdata(L, sizeof(GeminiObject *));
*lgo = go;
luaL_getmetatable(L, GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY);
lua_setmetatable(L, -2);
lua_newtable(L);
lua_setuservalue(L, -2);
NSLog(#"New GeminiObject created");
// add this new object to the globall list of objects
[[Gemini shared].geminiObjects addObject:go];
return 1;
}
This assigns a metatable which is set up elsewhere to provide access to various methods. Additionally, it attaches a table as a uservalue to allow script code to assign attributes to the objects.
I can create these objects in Lua scripts with no problem:
require "gemini"
x = gemini.new()
x:addEventListener("touch", objectTouched)
Here objectTouched is a a Lua method defined elsewhere that handles a touch event. Here addEventListener binds it to touch events.
These objects work just fine. When I attempt to create one from C, however, I am running into problems. I can create the object, but trying to assign it to a global and then invoke it in a script fails.
The following C code runs
-(void) addRuntimeObject {
GeminiObject *rt = [[GeminiObject alloc] initWithLuaState:L];
GeminiObject **lruntime = (GeminiObject **)lua_newuserdata(L, sizeof(GeminiObject *));
*lruntime = rt;
// set the metatable - effectively declaring the type for this object
luaL_getmetatable(L, GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY);
lua_setmetatable(L, -2);
// add a table to hold anything the user wants to add
lua_newtable(L);
lua_setuservalue(L, -2);
// create an entry in the global table
lua_setglobal(L, "Runtime");
// empty the stack
lua_pop(L, lua_gettop(L));
}
This should define a global named "Runtime". Trying to access this variable from a script like this
Runtime:addEventListener("enterFrame", enterFrame)
Results in the following error:
attempt to index global 'Runtime' (a userdata value)
It is a userdata value, but this doesn't seem to matter when I create one in Lua directly. The metatable binding provides access to the methods and metamethods. Again, this works fine if the object is created from Lua, just not when it is created in C.
Any ideas as to what I'm doing wrong here, or what the correct way to make a global from userdata is?
EDIT
Based on comments below regarding confusion about GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY, I thought I would list the code that is actually used in the binding:
static const struct luaL_Reg geminiObjectLib_f [] = {
{"new", newGeminiObject},
{NULL, NULL}
};
static const struct luaL_Reg geminiObjectLib_m [] = {
{"addEventListener", addEventListener},
{"__gc", geminiObjectGC},
{"__index", l_irc_index},
{"__newindex", l_irc_newindex},
{NULL, NULL}
};
int luaopen_geminiObjectLib (lua_State *L){
// create the metatable and put it into the registry
luaL_newmetatable(L, GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY);
lua_pushvalue(L, -1); // duplicates the metatable
luaL_setfuncs(L, geminiObjectLib_m, 0);
// create a table/library to hold the functions
luaL_newlib(L, geminiObjectLib_f);
NSLog(#"gemini lib opened");
return 1;
}
This code registers the library of functions (not show here) that provide the methods and metamethods for the GeminiObjects. The call to luaL_newmetatable creates a new metatable and associates it in the registry with the key GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY. GEMINI_OBJECT_LUA_KEY is just a unique string defined in the header. luaL_setfuncs actually adds the function pointers to the metatable, making them available as methods of the objects.
In case anyone is still interested, I got the answer to my question from the kind folks on the Lua mailing list. The problem here is that the library binding function luaopen_geminiObjectLib is not called before my call to addRuntimeObject.
Since iOS does not support dynamic libraries, I had added my libraries in statically by adding pointers to them to the preloadedlibs array in linit.c of the Lua source. Unfortunately, libraries added this way are not loaded until require('libname') is executed in a Lua script. Since I was calling my addRuntimeObject method prior to executing the Lua script, the library was not yet loaded.
The solution is to add the pointer to luaopen_geminiObjectLib to the loadedlibs array in the same linit.c file. This causes the library to be loaded when Lua starts up with no need for scripts to require it.