My team is using aliases to set some important variables which are used within the it('Test',) blocks.
For example, we may be running the following command in a before step:
cy.setupSomeDynamicData()
Then the setupSomeDynamicData() method exists in a another file (ex: commands.js) and the setupSomeDynamicData() method may setup a couple aliases:
cypress/support/commands.js
setupSomeDynamicData() {
cy.createDynamicString(first).as('String1')
cy.createDynamicString(second).as('String2')
cy.createDynamicString(third).as('String3')
}
Now we go back to our spec/test file, and start using these aliases:
cypress/e2e/smallTest.cy.js
it('A small example test', function () {
cy.visit(this.String1)
// do some stuff...
cy.get(this.String2)
// do some stuff...
cy.visit(this.String3)
// do some stuff...
})
The problem is that unless you're the person who wrote the code, it's not obvious where this.String1, this.String2, or this.String3 are coming from nor when they were initialized (from the perspective of smallTest.cy.js) since the code that initializes the aliases is being executed in another file.
In the example, it's quite easy to Ctrl+F the codebase and search for these aliases but you have to really start doing some reverse engineering once you have more complex use cases.
I guess this feels like some sort of readability/maintainability problem because once you setup enough of these and the example I provided starts to get more complex then finding out where these aliases are created can be inconvenient. The this.* syntax makes it feel like you'd find these aliases variables somewhere within the same file in which they're being used but when you don't see any sign of them then it becomes evident that they've just magically been initialized (somewhere/somehow) and then the hunt šµš¼āāļø begins.
Some solutions that come to mind (which may be bad ideas) are:
Create JS objects with getters/setters. This way, it'll be a bit easier to trace where the variable you're using was "set"
Not use aliases, and instead, use global variables that can be imported into the spec/test files so it's clear where they are coming from then run a before/after hook to clear these variables so that the reset-per-test functionality remains.
Name the variables in a way where it's obvious that they are aliased and then spread the word/document this method within my team so that anytime they see this.aliasedString2 then they know it's coming from some method that performs these alias assignments.
I'm sure there may be a better way to handle this so just thought I'd post this question.
The following function iterates through the names of directories in the file system, and if they are not in there already, adds these names as records to a database table. (Please note this question applies to most languages).
def find_new_dirs():
dirs_listed_in_db = get_dirs_in_db()
new_dirs = []
for dir in get_directories_in_our_path():
if dir not in dirs_listed_in_db:
new_dirs.append(dir)
return new_dirs
I want to write a unit test for this function. However, the function has a dependency on an external component - a database. So how should I write this test?
I assume I should 'mock out' the database. Does this mean I should take the function get_dirs_in_db as a parameter, like so?
def find_new_dirs(get_dirs_in_db):
dirs_listed_in_db = get_dirs_in_db()
new_dirs = []
for dir in get_directories_in_our_path():
if dir not in dirs_listed_in_db:
new_dirs.append(dir)
return new_dirs
Or possibly like so?
def find_new_dirs(db):
dirs_listed_in_db = db.get_dirs()
new_dirs = []
for dir in get_directories_in_our_path():
if dir not in dirs_listed_in_db:
new_dirs.append(dir)
return new_dirs
Or should I take a different approach?
Also, should I design my whole project this way from the start? Or should I refactor them to this design when the need arises when writing tests?
What you're describing is called dependency injection and yes, it is a common way of writing testable code. The second method you outlined (where you would pass in the db) is probably more common. Also, you can have the db parameter to your function take a default value so you are able to only specify the mock db in testing cases.
Whether to write your code that way at the outset or modify it later would be a matter of opinion, but if you adhere to the Test-driven development (TDD) methodology then you would write your tests before your code-under-test anyway.
There are other ways to deal with this problem, but you're asking a broad question at that point.
I take it these code fragments are python, which I'm not familiar with, but in any case this looks like the methods are detached from any stateful object and I'm not sure if that's idiomatic python or simply your design.
In an OOD you'd want an object that holds a data access object in its state (similar to your 2nd version) and mock that object for tests. You'd also want to mock the get_directories_our_path part.
As for when this design should be done - as the first step before creating the first code file. You should use dependency injection throughout your code. This will aid in testing as well as decoupling and increased reusability of your classes.
I have a function in another class file that gets information about the battery. In a form I have the following code:
If BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging = True Then
It appears Visual Studio accepts this. However, would it be better if I used the following code, which also works:
dim val as boolean = BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging
If val = True Then
Is there a difference between these two methods?
What you're asking in general is which approach is idiomatic.
The technical rule is not to invoke a method multiple times - unless you're specifically checking a volatile value for change - when its result can be preserved in a locally scoped variable. That's not what your asking but its important to understand that multiple calls should typically be bound to a variable.
That being said its better to produce less lines of code from a maintenance perspective as long as doing so improves the readability of your code. If you do have to declare a locally scoped variable to hold the return value of a method make sure to give the variable a meaningful name.
Prefer this [idiomatic VB.NET] one liner:
If BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging Then
over this:
Dim isBatteryCharging As Boolean = BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging
If isBatteryCharging Then
Another point you should concern yourself with are methods, which when invoked, create a side effect that affects the state of your program. In most circumstances it is undesirable to have a side effect causing method invoked multiple times - when possible rewrite such side affecting methods so that they do not cause any side effects. To limit the number of times a side effect will occur use the same local variable scoping rule instead of performing multiple invocations of the method.
No real difference.
The second is better if you need the value again of course. It's also marginally easier to debug when you have a value stored in a variable.
Personally I tend to use the first because I'm an old school C programmer at heart!
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.
Let's say you have a Fortran 90 module containing lots of variables, functions and subroutines. In your USE statement, which convention do you follow:
explicitly declare which variables/functions/subroutines you're using with the , only : syntax, such as USE [module_name], only : variable1, variable2, ...?
Insert a blanket USE [module_name]?
On the one hand, the only clause makes the code a bit more verbose. However, it forces you to repeat yourself in the code and if your module contains lots of variables/functions/subroutines, things begin to look unruly.
Here's an example:
module constants
implicit none
real, parameter :: PI=3.14
real, parameter :: E=2.71828183
integer, parameter :: answer=42
real, parameter :: earthRadiusMeters=6.38e6
end module constants
program test
! Option #1: blanket "use constants"
! use constants
! Option #2: Specify EACH variable you wish to use.
use constants, only : PI,E,answer,earthRadiusMeters
implicit none
write(6,*) "Hello world. Here are some constants:"
write(6,*) PI, &
E, &
answer, &
earthRadiusInMeters
end program test
Update
Hopefully someone says something like "Fortran? Just recode it in C#!" so I can down vote you.
Update
I like Tim Whitcomb's answer, which compares Fortran's USE modulename with Python's from modulename import *. A topic which has been on Stack Overflow before:
āimport moduleā or āfrom module importā
In an answer, Mark Roddy mentioned:
don't use 'from module import *'. For
any reasonable large set of code, if
you 'import *' your will likely be
cementing it into the module, unable
to be removed. This is because it is
difficult to determine what items used
in the code are coming from 'module',
making it east to get to the point
where you think you don't use the
import anymore but its extremely
difficult to be sure.
What are good rules of thumb for python imports?
dbr's answer contains
don't do from x import * - it makes
your code very hard to understand, as
you cannot easily see where a method
came from (from x import *; from y
import *; my_func() - where is my_func
defined?)
So, I'm leaning towards a consensus of explicitly stating all the items I'm using in a module via
USE modulename, only : var1, var2, ...
And as Stefano Borini mentions,
[if] you have a module so large that you
feel compelled to add ONLY, it means
that your module is too big. Split it.
I used to just do use modulename - then, as my application grew, I found it more and more difficult to find the source to functions (without turning to grep) - some of the other code floating around the office still uses a one-subroutine-per-file, which has its own set of problems, but it makes it much easier to use a text editor to move through the code and quickly track down what you need.
After experiencing this, I've become a convert to using use...only whenever possible. I've also started picking up Python, and view it the same way as from modulename import *. There's a lot of great things that modules give you, but I prefer to keep my global namespace tightly controlled.
It's a matter of balance.
If you use only a few stuff from the module, it makes sense if you add ONLY, to clearly specify what you are using.
If you use a lot of stuff from the module, specifying ONLY will be followed by a lot of stuff, so it makes less sense. You are basically cherry-picking what you use, but the true fact is that you are dependent on that module as a whole.
However, in the end the best philosophy is this one: if you are concerned about namespace pollution, and you have a module so large that you feel compelled to add ONLY, it means that your module is too big. Split it.
Update: Fortran? just recode it in python ;)
Not exactly answering the question here, just throwing in another solution that I have found useful in some circumstances, if for whatever reason you don't want to split your module and start to get namespace clashes. You can use derived types to store several namespaces in one module.
If there is some logical grouping of the variables, you can create your own derived type for each group, store an instance of this type in the module and then you can import just the group that you happen to need.
Small example: We have a lot of data some of which is user input and some that is the result of miscellaneous initializations.
module basicdata
implicit none
! First the data types...
type input_data
integer :: a, b
end type input_data
type init_data
integer :: b, c
end type init_data
! ... then declare the data
type(input_data) :: input
type(init_data) :: init
end module basicdata
Now if a subroutine only uses data from init, you import just that:
subroutine doesstuff
use basicdata, only : init
...
q = init%b
end subroutine doesstuff
This is definitely not a universally applicable solution, you get some extra verbosity from the derived type syntax and then it will of course barely help if your module is not the basicdata sort above, but instead more of a allthestuffivebeenmeaningtosortoutvariety. Anyway, I have had some luck in getting code that fits easier into the brain this way.
The main advantage of USE, ONLY for me is that it avoids polluting my global namespace with stuff I don't need.
Agreed with most answers previously given, use ..., only: ... is the way to go, use types when it makes sense, apply python thinking as much as possible. Another suggestion is to use appropriate naming conventions in your imported module, along with private / public statements.
For instance, the netcdf library uses nf90_<some name>, which limits the namespace pollution on the importer side.
use netcdf ! imported names are prefixed with "nf90_"
nf90_open(...)
nf90_create(...)
nf90_get_var(...)
nf90_close(...)
similarly, the ncio wrapper to this library uses nc_<some name> (nc_read, nc_write...).
Importantly, with such designs where use: ..., only: ... is made less relevant, you'd better control the namespace of the imported module by setting appropriate private / public attributes in the header, so that a quick look at it will be sufficient for readers to assess which level of "pollution" they are facing. This is basically the same as use ..., only: ..., but on the imported module side - thus to be written only once, not at each import).
One more thing: as far as object-orientation and python are concerned, a difference in my view is that fortran does not really encourage type-bound procedures, in part because it is a relatively new standard (e.g. not compatible with a number of tools, and less rationally, it is just unusual) and because it breaks handy behavior such as procedure-free derived type copy (type(mytype) :: t1, t2 and t2 = t1). That means you often have to import the type and all would-be type-bound procedures, instead of just the class. This alone makes fortran code more verbose compared to python, and practical solutions like a prefix naming convention may come in handy.
IMO, the bottom line is: choose your coding style for people who will read it (this includes your later self), as taught by python. The best is the more verbose use ..., only: ... at each import, but in some cases a simple naming convention will do it (if you are disciplined enough...).
Yes, please use use module, only: .... For large code bases with multiple programmers, it makes the code easier to follow by everyone (or just use grep).
Please do not use include, use a smaller module for that instead. Include is a text insert of source code which is not checked by the compiler at the same level as use module, see: FORTRAN: Difference between INCLUDE and modules. Include generally makes it harder for both humans and computer to use the code which means it should not be used. Ex. from mpi-forum: "The use of the mpif.h include file is strongly discouraged and may be deprecated in a future version of MPI." (http://mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-3.1/mpi31-report/node411.htm).
I know I'm a little late to the party, but if you're only after a set of constants and not necessarily computed values, you could do like C and create an include file:
inside a file,
e.g., constants.for
real, parameter :: pi = 3.14
real, parameter :: g = 6.67384e-11
...
program main
use module1, only : func1, subroutine1, func2
implicit none
include 'constants.for'
...
end program main
Edited to remove "real(4)" as some think it is bad practice.