excuse my English
I am presenting an extension on phpbb, but this has been rejected for this.
Line 25: please declare this property in your class or use a local variable.
I can not figure out what to do
They would like you to declare the properties before using them like this:
class banner_scroll_module
{
public $u_action;
private $table;
function main($id, $mode)
{
...
$this->table = $table_prefix . 'banner';
}
}
Or, if they will only be used within that function you can just use local variables:
class banner_scroll_module
{
public $u_action;
function main($id, $mode)
{
...
$table = $table_prefix . 'banner';
}
}
Note that they will also want you to fix $tpl_name and $page_title
In response to your second question (which shouldn't be asked in an answer I believe) you need to free the result like this:
$this->$db->sql_freeresult($result_banner);
Related
Is there a way to test private methods in Raku?
I understand that one should ideally define their tests targeting the public methods, but is there a way to do it "the wrong way"? :)
I initially thought about defining a subclass for the Testing that inherited from the class I wanted to test and do the tests there, but it seems that private methods are not inherited.
Then I saw the 'trusts' routine, but I wouldn't want to reference a Testing class on any of the classes of the code.
Is there something like changing the 'private' property of a method via introspection?
What would be the best way to call/test a private method?
This can be done using introspection.
Consider this is the class you want to test:
class SomeClass {
has Int $!attribute;
method set-value(Int $value) returns Nil {
$!attribute = $value;
return;
}
method get-value returns Int {
return $!attribute;
}
# Private method
method !increase-value-by(Int $extra) returns Nil {
$!attribute += $extra;
return;
}
}
You may create a test like this:
use Test;
use SomeClass;
plan 3;
my SomeClass $some-class = SomeClass.new;
my Method:D $increase-value = $some-class.^find_private_method: 'increase-value-by';
$some-class.set-value: 1;
$increase-value($some-class, 4);
is $some-class.get-value, 5, '1+4 = 5';
$increase-value($some-class, 5);
is $some-class.get-value, 10, '5+5 = 10';
my SomeClass $a-new-class = SomeClass.new;
$a-new-class.set-value: 0;
$increase-value($a-new-class, -1);
is $a-new-class.get-value, -1, '0+(-1) = -1; The method can be used on a new class';
done-testing;
You first create an instance of the class and the use ^find_private_method to get its private Method. Then you can call that Method by passing an instance of a class as the first parameter.
There's a more complete explanation on this answer:
How do you access private methods or attributes from outside the type they belong to?
A fresh cup of tea and #Julio's and #JJ's answers inspired the following:
class SomeClass { method !private ($foo) { say $foo } }
use MONKEY-TYPING; augment class SomeClass { trusts GLOBAL }
my SomeClass $some-class = SomeClass.new;
$some-class!SomeClass::private(42); # 42
My solution tweaks the class using monkey typing. Monkey typing is a generally dodgy thing to do (hence the LOUD pragma). But it seems tailor made for a case just like this. Augment the class with a trusts GLOBAL and Bob's your Uncle.
Raku requires the SomeClass:: qualification for this to work. (Perhaps when RakuAST macros arrive there'll be a tidy way to get around that.) My inclination is to think that having to write a class qualification is OK, and the above solution is much better than the following, but YMMV...
Perhaps, instead:
use MONKEY-TYPING;
augment class SomeClass {
multi method FALLBACK ($name where .starts-with('!!!'), |args) {
.(self, |args) with $?CLASS.^find_private_method: $name.substr: 3
}
}
and then:
$some-class.'!!!private'(42); # 42
I've used:
A multi for the FALLBACK, and have required that the method name string starts with !!!;
A regular method call (. not !);
Calling the method by a string version of its name.
The multi and !!! is in case the class being tested already has one or more FALLBACK methods declared.
A convention of prepending !!! seems more or less guaranteed to ensure that the testing code will never interfere with how the class is supposed to work. (In particular, if there were some call to a private method that didn't exist, and there was existing FALLBACK handling, it would handle that case without this monkey FALLBACK getting involved.)
It should also alert anyone reading the test code that something odd is going on, in the incredibly unlikely case that something weird did start happening, either because I'm missing something that I just can't see, or because some FALLBACK code within a class just so happened to use the same convention.
Besides using introspection, you can try and use a external helper role to access all private methods and call them directly. For instance:
role Privateer {
method test-private-method ( $method-name, |c ) {
self!"$method-name"(|c);
}
}
class Privateed does Privateer {
method !private() { return "⌣" }
}
my $obj = Privateed.new;
say $obj.test-private-method( "private" );
The key here is to call a method by name, which you can do with public and private methods, although for private methods you need to use their special syntax self!.
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
I want to write a function where you parse the class type (the class, not an instance) then the function will instantiate an instance based on that parameter.
This is best explained by example:
//All possible paramter types must inherit from this base class
class Base { public name : string = ''; }
//These are possible classes that could be parsed to the function
class Foo extends Base { constructor() { super(); console.log("Foo instance created"); } }
class Bar extends Base { constructor() { super(); console.log("Bar instance created"); } }
//This function should take a class that inherits from 'Base' as a paramter - then it will create an instance
function Example(param : ?????????) : Base //I don't know what type the 'param' should be
{
return new param(); //Create instance?? How do I do this
}
//This should be the output - if it worked (but it doesn't)
Example(Foo); //Logs "Foo instance created""
Example(Bar); //Logs "Foo instance created""
//So if this worked, it would become possible to do this:
let b : Foo = Example(Foo);
let c : Bar = Example(Bar);
So my questions is: what type would the param for the 'Example' function be? And how would I create an instance of param from within the function.
Note, if this question is a duplicate I apologise - but I don't know the technical name for this process so it is difficult to research.
You want something like this.
function Example<T extends Base>(param: new () => T): T {
return new param();
}
We know that you'll have some type that is a Base. We're going to name it T, and we'll say that T extends Base to enforce that.
We also know that param will construct a T with no parameters. We can write new () => T to describe that.
Basically the way to think about this is that a class has both an instance side and a static side (also called the "constructor" side). In your example, Base, Foo, and Bar on their own have the static side.
The static side for each of them consists of all the static members you specify (and there aren't any in this case), along with the construct signature. In your case, Example takes a constructor expects no arguments, and produces some subtype of Base.
I want to change the global variable in a function where a local variable of same is already present.
int x=10; //global variable
void fun1()
{
fun2(5);
}
void fun2(int x)
{
x=7; //here i want that this statement assigns the value 7 to the global x
}
Just qualify it with this. It's a pretty common pattern, particularly for constructors:
public class Player
{
private readonly string name;
public Player(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
}
While I view it as acceptable if your parameter really is meant to be a new value for the field (potentially in a method which creates a new instance based on the current one and the new value for the single field, for example), I would try to avoid it in general, just from a readability perspective. Of course, the names of your private fields are an implementation detail, but when reading the code for the method, it's confusing to have two different concepts represented by the same variable name.
Rename the local parameter value.
Like Yuriy Vikulov said.
this.x for non-static variables
int x=10; //global variable
void fun1()
{
fun2(5);
}
void fun2(int lx)
{
x=7; //if you want 7
x=lx; //if you want the paramValue
}
this.x for non-static classes
NameClass.x for static variables
This is a sample code. A class Foo that has a getBar function without setBar function
class Foo {
...
public function getBar() {
return 'Bar';
}
}
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.
Just because a class provides read access to a member, there is no reason why it has to provide write access, and this is often undesirable.