I am using the class below in a test to take the place of the 'real' Requestor. (The real one does HTTP.) Note that the method in here has void for return type, but it has behavior to mock; it calls back on the callback. I wish that I could write expectations on the method here so that I don't need to write JUnit asserts on counters and such. But I don't see how; I don't see how this can be an #Mock, since I'm not substituting for some other live object, and I don't see how to use a delegate for a function that returns void. Is there a way?
private static class TrivialRequestor implements Requestor {
private final boolean error;
private final int returnedQueueDepth;
TrivialRequestor(boolean error, int returnedQueueDepth) {
this.error = error;
this.returnedQueueDepth = returnedQueueDepth;
}
#Override
public void dispatch(Ticket ticket, FutureCallback<RequestorResult> callback) {
if (error) {
callback.onFailure(new Exception("You asked for it"));
} else {
callback.onSuccess(new RequestorResult(ticket, returnedQueueDepth));
}
}
}
Related
A custom object that takes a parameter of (DocumentSnapShot documentsnapShot). also is an inner object from Firebase that retrieves a snapshot and set the values to my custom model also have its argument (DocumentSnapShot documentsnapShot). However, I wish to get the data from Firebase and pass it to my custom argument because mine takes multiple data not only Firebase. And it's not possible to iterate Firestore without an override.
Here's the code:
public UserSettings getUserSettings(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot){
Log.d(TAG, "getUserSettings: retrieving user account settings from firestore");
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
settings.setDisplay_name(documentSnapshot.getString("display_name"));
settings.setUsername(documentSnapshot.getString("username"));
settings.setWebsite(documentSnapshot.getString("website"));
settings.setProfile_photo(documentSnapshot.getString("profile_photo"));
settings.setPosts(documentSnapshot.getLong("posts"));
settings.setFollowers(documentSnapshot.getLong("followers"));
settings.setFollowing(documentSnapshot.getLong("following"));
}
});
}
You cannot return something now that hasn't been loaded yet. Firestore loads data asynchronously, since it may take some time for this. Depending on your connection speed and the state, it may take from a few hundred milliseconds to a few seconds before that data is available. If you want to pass settings object to another method, just call that method inside onSuccess() method and pass that object as an argument. So a quick fix would be this:
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
yourMethod(settings);
}
One more thing to mention is that you don't need to set the those values to object that already have them. You are already getting the data from the database as an object.
So remember, onSuccess() method has an asynchronous behaviour, which means that is called even before you are getting the data from your database. If you want to use the settings object outside that method, you need to create your own callback. To achieve this, first you need to create an interface like this:
public interface MyCallback {
void onCallback(UserAccountSettings settings);
}
Then you need to create a method that is actually getting the data from the database. This method should look like this:
public void readData(MyCallback myCallback) {
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
myCallback.onCallback(settings);
}
});
}
In the end just simply call readData() method and pass an instance of the MyCallback interface as an argument wherever you need it like this:
readData(new MyCallback() {
#Override
public void onCallback(UserAccountSettings settings) {
Log.d("TAG", settings.getDisplay_name());
}
});
This is the only way in which you can use that object of UserAccountSettings class outside onSuccess() method. For more informations, you can take also a look at this video.
Use LiveData as return type and observe the changes of it's value to execute desired operation.
private MutableLiveData<UserAccountSettings> userSettingsMutableLiveData = new MutableLiveData<>();
public MutableLiveData<UserAccountSettings> getUserSettings(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot){
DocumentReference mSettings = mFirebaseFirestore.collection("user_account_settings").document(userID);
mSettings.get().addOnSuccessListener(new OnSuccessListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot) {
UserAccountSettings settings = documentSnapshot.toObject(UserAccountSettings.class);
settings.setDisplay_name(documentSnapshot.getString("display_name"));
settings.setUsername(documentSnapshot.getString("username"));
settings.setWebsite(documentSnapshot.getString("website"));
settings.setProfile_photo(documentSnapshot.getString("profile_photo"));
settings.setPosts(documentSnapshot.getLong("posts"));
settings.setFollowers(documentSnapshot.getLong("followers"));
settings.setFollowing(documentSnapshot.getLong("following"));
userSettingsMutableLiveData.setValue(settings);
}
});
return userSettingsMutableLiveData;
}
Then from your Activity/Fragment observe the LiveData and inside onChanged do your desired operation.
getUserSettings().observe(this, new Observer<UserAccountSettings>() {
#Override
public void onChanged(UserAccountSettings userAccountSettings) {
//here, do whatever you want on `userAccountSettings`
}
});
Hangfire DisableConcurrentExecution attribute not working as expected.
I have one method and that can be called with different Id. I want to prevent concurrent execution of method if same Id is passed.
string jobName= $"{Id} - Entry Job";
_recurringJobManager.AddOrUpdate<EntryJob>(jobName, j => j.RunAsync(Id, Null), "0 2 * * *");
My EntryJob interface having RunAsync method.
public class EntryJob: IJob
{
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
public async Task RunAsync(int Id, SomeObj obj)
{
//Some coe
}
}
And interface look like this
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
public interface IJob
{
[DisableConcurrentExecution(3600)] <-- Tried here
Task RunAsync(int Id, SomeObj obj);
}
Now I want to prevent RunAsync method to call multiple times if Id is same. I have tried to put DisableConcurrentExecution on top of the RunAsync method at both location inside interface declaration and also from where Interface is implemented.
But it seems like not working for me. Is there any way to prevent concurrency based on Id?
The existing implementation of DisableConcurrentExecution does not support this. It will prevent concurrent executions of the method with any args. It would be fairly simple to add support in. Note below is untested pseudo-code:
public class DisableConcurrentExecutionWithArgAttribute : JobFilterAttribute, IServerFilter
{
private readonly int _timeoutInSeconds;
private readonly int _argPos;
// add additional param to pass in which method arg you want to use for
// deduping jobs
public DisableConcurrentExecutionAttribute(int timeoutInSeconds, int argPos)
{
if (timeoutInSeconds < 0) throw new ArgumentException("Timeout argument value should be greater that zero.");
_timeoutInSeconds = timeoutInSeconds;
_argPos = argPos;
}
public void OnPerforming(PerformingContext filterContext)
{
var resource = GetResource(filterContext.BackgroundJob.Job);
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(_timeoutInSeconds);
var distributedLock = filterContext.Connection.AcquireDistributedLock(resource, timeout);
filterContext.Items["DistributedLock"] = distributedLock;
}
public void OnPerformed(PerformedContext filterContext)
{
if (!filterContext.Items.ContainsKey("DistributedLock"))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Can not release a distributed lock: it was not acquired.");
}
var distributedLock = (IDisposable)filterContext.Items["DistributedLock"];
distributedLock.Dispose();
}
private static string GetResource(Job job)
{
// adjust locked resource to include the argument to make it unique
// for a given ID
return $"{job.Type.ToGenericTypeString()}.{job.Method.Name}.{job.Args[_argPos].ToString()}";
}
}
I would like to ask if the decorator pattern suits my needs and is another way to make my software design much better?
Previously I have a device which is always on all the time. On the code below, that is the Device class. Now, to conserve some battery life, I need to turn it off then On again. I created a DeviceWithOnOffDecorator class. I used decorator pattern which I think helped a lot in avoiding modifications on the Device class. But having On and Off on every operation, I feel that the code doesn't conform to DRY principle.
namespace Decorator
{
interface IDevice
{
byte[] GetData();
void SendData();
}
class Device : IDevice
{
public byte[] GetData() {return new byte[] {1,2,3 }; }
public void SendData() {Console.WriteLine("Sending Data"); }
}
// new requirement, the device needs to be turned on and turned off
// after each operation to save some Battery Power
class DeviceWithOnOffDecorator:IDevice
{
IDevice mIdevice;
public DeviceWithOnOffDecorator(IDevice d)
{
this.mIdevice = d;
Off();
}
void Off() { Console.WriteLine("Off");}
void On() { Console.WriteLine("On"); }
public byte[] GetData()
{
On();
var b = mIdevice.GetData();
Off();
return b;
}
public void SendData()
{
On();
mIdevice.SendData();
Off();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Device device = new Device();
DeviceWithOnOffDecorator devicewithOnOff = new DeviceWithOnOffDecorator(device);
IDevice iDevice = devicewithOnOff;
var data = iDevice.GetData();
iDevice.SendData();
}
}
}
On this example: I just have two operations only GetData and SendData, but on the actual software there are lots of operations involved and I need to do enclose each operations with On and Off,
void AnotherOperation1()
{
On();
// do all stuffs here
Off();
}
byte AnotherOperation2()
{
On();
byte b;
// do all stuffs here
Off();
return b;
}
I feel that enclosing each function with On and Off is repetitive and is there a way to improve this?
Edit: Also, the original code is in C++. I just wrote it in C# here to be able to show the problem clearer.
Decorator won't suite this purpose, since you are not adding the responsibility dynamically. To me what you need to do is intercept the request and execute on() and off() methods before and after the actual invocation. For that purpose write a Proxy that wraps the underlying instance and do the interception there while leaving your original type as it is.
So i have a class that makes an array list for me and i need to access it in another class through a constructor but i don't know what to put into the constructor because all my methods in that class are just for manipulating that list. im either getting a null pointer exception or a out of bounds exception. ive tried just leaving the constructor empty but that dosent seem to help. thanks in advance. i would show you code but my professor is very strict on academic dishonesty so i cant sorry if that makes it hard.
You are confusing the main question, with a potential solution.
Main Question:
I have a class ArrayListOwnerClass with an enclosed arraylist property or field.
How should another class ArrayListFriendClass access that property.
Potential Solution:
Should I pass the arraylist from ArrayListOwnerClass to ArrayListFriendClass,
in the ArrayListFriendClass constructor ?
It depends on what the second class does with the arraylist.
Instead of passing the list thru the constructor, you may add functions to read or change, as public, the elements of the hidden internal arraylist.
Note: You did not specify a programming language. I'll use C#, altought Java, C++, or similar O.O.P. could be used, instead.
public class ArrayListOwnerClass
{
protected int F_Length;
protected ArrayList F_List;
public ArrayListOwnerClass(int ALength)
{
this.F_Length = ALength;
this.F_List = new ArrayList(ALength);
// ...
} // ArrayListOwnerClass(...)
public int Length()
{
return this.F_Length;
} // int Length(...)
public object getAt(int AIndex)
{
return this.F_List[AIndex];
} // object getAt(...)
public void setAt(int AIndex, object AValue)
{
this.F_List[AIndex] = AValue;
} // void setAt(...)
public void DoOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void DoOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListOwnerClass
public class ArrayListFriendClass
{
public void UseArrayList(ArrayListOwnerClass AListOwner)
{
bool CanContinue =
(AListOwner != null) && (AListOwner.Length() > 0);
if (CanContinue)
{
int AItem = AListOwner.getAt(5);
DoSomethingWith(Item);
} // if (CanContinue)
} // void UseArrayList(...)
public void AlsoDoesOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void AlsoDoesOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListFriendClass
Note, that I could use an indexed property.
I have a method that should only be called when a property of a specific object is set to false. This is its initial value. After the first call, the property is set to true, ensuring that the call is only ever made once.
However, when I mock the class that performs this change, the mock object does not change the property of the underlying object.
Is there a way to force a change of a property on an object is response to an Expectation being met?
Something along the lines of...
Expect.Call(mockedObject.TestMethod(underlyingObject)).NowDoThis(delegate() { underlyingObject.Processed = true; });
Yes,
instead of your NowDoThis() call try Do()
Finally home so I can try out some code.
The trick is to cast the anonymous delegate to type Action that derrives from System.Delegate (type MethodInvoker should also work but that type is only available in System.Windows.Forms)
Here's the code. I'm more comfortable with the rhino mocks AAA syntax. Let me know if I have to convert it to Expect.Call syntax. I'm also using xunit.net, [Fact] just means [Test]
public interface Thingie
{
bool Flag { get; set; }
void DoSomething();
}
[Fact]
public void Test()
{
var thingie = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Thingie>();
thingie.Stub(x => x.DoSomething()).Do((Action) delegate { thingie.Flag = true; });
Assert.False(thingie.Flag);
thingie.DoSomething();
Assert.True(thingie.Flag);
}
Assuming mockedObject is, in fact, a mock object, you can simply set a return value for your property after the test method has been called:
bool isProcessed = false;
Expect.Call(mockedObject.TestMethod(underlyingObject))
.Do(new Action(() => isProcessed = true));
SetupResult.For(mockedObject.Processed).Return(isProcessed);