I'm trying to force CAN signals to given values using COM interface of CANalyzer. Since there is no COM method to send CAN messages, I'm implementing a workaround using CAPL:
void SendMySignal(int value) {
message MyMessage msg;
msg.MySignal = value;
output(msg);
}
This works fine, however since MyMessage and MySignal are referenced statically (by name) here, I'll have to implement N functions to be able to send N signals (or an N-way switch statement, etc). Is there a way to avoid the hassle and access signals inside a message by string? Something like this:
void SendSignal(int MessageID, char SignalName, int value)
I'm also open to alternative solutions in case I have missed something in the COM interface. If there is a solution which only works for CANoe, I can ask my boss for a license, but of course I'd prefer to do without.
there is such function, but it is restricted to be used only in test nodes
long setSignal(char signalName[], double aValue);
you can find details in:
CAPL Function Overview » Test Feature Set / Signal Access » SetSignal
Special Use Case: Signal is not known before Measurement Start
and take care about not to send for each signal a new message to avoid bus over-flooding. In my opinion it is a better style to set all signals for whole message and to send it on change only when it is not cyclic. Signal updates in cyclic messages mostly have to be sent in next cycle.
Related
I am trying to log field writes with bytebuddy. After reading some earlier posts, I started using MemberSubstitution and got something going using the following code:
private static Method FIELD_INTERCEPTOR = // reflective reference to interceptFieldWrite
AsmVisitorWrapper VISITOR = MemberSubstitution.relaxed()
.field(ElementMatchers.any())
.onWrite()
.replaceWith(FIELD_INTERCEPTOR)
.on(ElementMatchers.isMethod());
..
public static void interceptFieldWrite(Object object,Object value) {
System.out.println("intercepted field write in object " + object + " , attempt to set value to " + value);
}
..
The part I am struggling with is how to pass a reference to the field for which the access is intercepted to interceptFieldWrite (as string or instance of Field). If possible I would of course like to avoid reflection completely. I don't actually want to completely substitute field access, but just want to add a method with some checks just before it takes place. Is there a feature in bytebuddy to do this, or do I have to use something more low-level than ASM to achieve this ?
Byte Buddy offers this but you will have to compose your own StackManipulations to do so. The mechanism in MemberSubstitution is called replaceWithChain. Here you specify Steps where each step can do what you intend:
invoke a method via MethodInvocation.
write a field via FieldAccessor.
You will have to load the arguments to the method call and the field access prior to using the above stack manipulations via the MethodVariableAccess where the targeted element's offsets are represented by offsets.
In your case, this would require to read the target instance via
MethodVaribaleAccess.of(parameters.get(0)).loadFrom(offsets.get(0));
MethodVaribaleAccess.of(parameters.get(1)).loadFrom(offsets.get(1));
and the to execute the method or field write in question. The targeted field will be passed as target, you can cast it to FieldDescription if you only ever intercept fields.
Make sure you only intercept non-static fields where the this instance will not be passed.
I need to be able to create an event processing rule that when you add a new device, you take a string value from one fragment (e.g.: c8y_Hardware.imei) and use that string to populate another fragment (e.g: c8y_Mobile.imei). So the new device would then have the same value in both c8y_Hardware.imei and c8y_Mobile.imei.
We have attempted setting up the appropriate CEP rules, but they are not working (they do compile and save).
insert into UpdateManagedObject
select
m.id as id,
{
"c8y_Mobile.imei", getString(m,"c8y_Hardware.imei")
} as fragments
from
ManagedObjectCreated as m
where
getString(m,"c8y_Hardware.imei") != "";
Any guidance on where we are messing up our syntax would be greatly appreciated.
It should be: m.managedObject.id as id.
Usually you would also get an error on compile but it can be that the streams also have an id so that it technically works in CEP. You should be able to check if it triggers on the debug stream and see the id that has been set.
Same applies for all other Cumulocity streams. The streams itself e.g. ManagedObjectCreated or AlarmUpdated etc. are not the objects directly. They have always a property like in this case managedObject or for AlarmUpdated it is alarm. This property is the actual payload.
The helper methods like getString are written in a way that you can pass either the payload or the full stream object so there it does not matter.
I have a problem with the sequence model seen in the diagram below, specifically where the System object is creating a new Number. In this case, there is no need for a return message since the function SaveInput(n), both in System and Number, is the end of the line for that portion of the program, but unless I include one, the modeller reshaped my diagram into the other one I've uploaded here, and I can't see how to arrange the messages so that my program will work the way I intend without including the return message (the one without a name) from Number to System, since the functions SaveInput() both return a void.
How should void-returning functions be handled in sequence diagrams so that they behave correctly? I have opened the message properties and explicitly defined it as returning a void, but that hasn't helped.
When A calls operation b in B, the "return" arrow from B to A indicates the end of the operation b has finished its execution. This doesn´t mean that as part of the return message you have to return a value, it only means that the execution is done and you can continue with the next messages. Visually, most tools also use these return messages to manage the life bar of the object.
The next two declarations are equivalent:
protected type prot_Type is
....
pragma Priority(System.Priority'Last);
end;
protected type prot_Type is
....
end;
One way of attaching interrupt handler is:
protected type prot_Type is
procedure Handler;
pragma Attach_Handler(Handler, ...);
end;
--//Attach is made at the creation of the next object:
Object : prot_Type;
it's a legal attachment (It works).
How is it possible that the handler has ceiling priority of System.Priority Last ? (As far as I know the legal priority is in range Priority'Last+1 .. Any_Priority'Last).
Another thing:
if I add the pragma Priority(System.Priority'Last); to the protected declaration, a program_error exception is raised at the elaboration (when attaching the handler).
Someone can please spread the fog?
I finally manage to understand thanks to:
http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/users/jmiranda/gnat-rts/node33.htm
The fact that an hadler that defined in a protected with ceiling priority System.Priority'Last managed to be attached to Interrupt seems to me like bug in the compiler.
Only hendlers that defined in a protected with ceiling priority in Interrupt_Prioriy'Range can be attached to interrupt.
Another important thing - for non static protected (i.e declared with "protected type ... ") the attachment is made by the creation of the object of that type. The object must be allocated dynamicly.
Yony.
This question is about attaching interrupts (or signals) to a protected object to function as interrupt handlers. It is wonderful that Ada provides you a mostly language-standard way to do this, but there are limits to what is in the standard, and I think your question hits one. You really need to read your compiler's documenation for this one.
For example, if what you are attaching to is an honest-to-god system interrupt, then it is quite possible that your handler will get called directly from the system interrupt, which is of course completely outside of (and thus above) both your OS's process priority and Ada's task priority systems.
Generally in such a case, like with any ISR, you'd want to do the absolute minimum required to make note of and deal with the interrupt, interact with the system as little as possible (no I/O or tasking interactions), and return control back to the system so it can start behaving normally again. In your case, you might want to increment a variable or set a flag internal to your tagged type, take down any volatile info about the interrupt you may need later, then return.
public void PublicMethod(FooBar fooBar)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null");
// log the call [added: Thanks S.Lott]
_logger.Log("PublicMethod called with fooBar class " + fooBar.Classification);
int action = DetermineAction();
PrivateMethod(fooBar, action);
}
private void PrivateMethod(FooBar fooBar, int action)
{
if (fooBar == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fooBar", "fooBar cannot be null"); // Is this line superfluous?
/*
Do something
*/
}
Is it OK to skip this kind of error checking in private methods if the input is already checked on the public interface? Usually there's some sort of rule-of-thumb one can go by...
Edit:
Maybe ArgumentNullException isn't such a good example because the argument can be made that you should check at both levels but return different error messages.
I would say no.
While it certainly holds true that you in this case knows that it has already been checked for nullability, in two months time the youngest intern will come along and write
PublicMethod2 that also calls PrivateMethod, but lo and behold he forgot to check for null.
Since the public method doesn't really use foobar, I'm not sure why it's checking. The current private method cares, but it's the private method's responsibility to care. Indeed, the whole point of a private method is to delegate all the responsibilities to it.
A method checks the input it actually uses; it doesn't check stuff it's just passing through.
If a different subclass has the same public method, but some different private method implementation -- one that can tolerate nulls -- what now? You have a public method that now has wrong constraints for the new subclass.
You want to do as little as possible in the public method so that various private implementations are free to do the right thing. Don't "over-check" or "just-in-case" check. Delegate responsibility.
I'd error check everything you can, you never know when something might happen that you didn't think about. (and its better safe than sorry)
When using design by contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract) it’s normally client’s (public method) responsibility to make correct invocation, i.e. pass on valid parameters. In this particular scenario it depends whether null belongs to a set of valid input values, therefore there are 3 options:
1) Null is valid value: throwing exceptions or errors would have meant breaking the contract, the server (private method) has to process the null and shouldn’t complain.
2) Null is invalid value and passed by code within your control: it is up to the server (private method) to decide how to react. Obviously, throwing an exception is more graceful way of handling the situation, but it has a cost of having to handle that exception somewhere else up the stack. Exceptions are not the best way to deal with violation of contract caused by programming blunders. You really should throw exceptions not when a contract is already violated but when it cannot be fulfilled because of environmental problems what cannot be controlled in software. Blunders are better handled by sticking an assertion into the beginning of the private method to check that the parameter is not null. This will keep the complexity of your code down, there is no cost of having to handle the exception up the stack and it will achieve the goal of highlighting broken contracts during testing.
3) Then there is defensive programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming). When dealing with parameters passed by an external code outside your control the immediate layer of your code needs to run paranoid level of checks and return errors according to its communication contract with the external world. Then, going deeper into the code layers not exposed externally, it still makes more sense to stick to the programming by contract.
At least put a comment that PrivateMethod must have a non-null FooBar and that PublicMethod checks this.
You might want to also mark the "private" method as private or protected.
That depends if a null-value indicates an error for a method. Remember that methods could also be called messages to an object; they operate on the state of the object aswell. Parameters can specialize the kind of message sent.
If publicMethod() does not use a parameter and changes the state of the instance while privateMethod() uses the parameter, do not consider it an error in publicMethod, but do in privateMethod().
If publicMethod() does not change state, consider it an error.
You could see the latter case as providing an interface to the internal functioning of an object.
I'd consider the answer to be "yes, do the check again" because:-
The private member could be reused again in the future from a different path through the code, so program defensively against that situation.
If you perform unit tests on private methods
My view might change if I had a static analyser that could pick this up and not flag the potential use of a null reference in the private method.
In cases where PrivateMethod will be called frequently with input that has already been verified, and only rarely with user input, Then I would use the PublicMethod/PrivateMethod concept with no error checking on PrivateMethod (and with PublicMethod doing nothing other then checking the parameters and calling PrivateMethod)
I would also call the private method something like PublicMethod_impl (for "implementation") so it's clear that it's an internal use/ no checking method.
I maintain that this design leads to more robust application, as it forces you to think about what's checked when. Too often people who always check parameters fall into the trap of "I've checked something, therefore I've checked everything".
As an example of this, a former co-worker (programming in C) would, before using a pointer, always check to see if it was null. Generally, the pointers in his code were initialized as startup and never changed, so the chances of it being null were quite low. Moreover, the pointer has one correct value and 65535 possible wrong values, and he was only checking for one of those wrong values.