I want to convert my class to a Map so I'm using Serialization package. From the example it looks simple:
var address = new Address();
address.street = 'N 34th';
address.city = 'Seattle';
var serialization = new Serialization()
..addRuleFor(Address);
Map output = serialization.write(address);
I expect to see an output like {'street' : 'N 34th', 'city' : 'Seattle'} but instead it just output something I-don't-know-what-that-is
{"roots":[{"__Ref":true,"rule":3,"object":0}],"data":[[],[],[],[["Seattle","N 34th"]]],"rules":"{\"roots\":[{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":1,\"object\":0}],\"data\":[[],[[{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":4,\"object\":0},{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":3,\"object\":0},{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":5,\"object\":0},{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":6,\"object\":0}]],[[],[],[\"city\",\"street\"]],[[]],[[]],[[]],[[{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":2,\"object\":0},{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":2,\"object\":1},\"\",{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":2,\"object\":2},{\"__Ref\":true,\"rule\":7,\"object\":0}]],[\"Address\"]],\"rules\":null}"}
Serialization is not supposed to create human-readable output. Maybe JSON output is more what you look for:
import dart:convert;
{
var address = new Address();
..address.street = 'N 34th';
..address.city = 'Seattle';
var encoded = JSON.encode(address, mirrorJson);
}
Map mirrorJson(o) {
Map map = new Map();
InstanceMirror im = reflect(o);
ClassMirror cm = im.type;
var decls = cm.declarations.values.where((dm) => dm is VariableMirror);
decls.forEach((dm) {
var key = MirrorSystem.getName(dm.simpleName);
var val = im.getField(dm.simpleName).reflectee;
map[key] = val;
});
return map;
}
The new Address() creates a full prototype object which is what you are seeing. That being said, they could have done something to avoid part of those, but if you want to restore the object just the way it is, that's necessary.
To see the full content of an object you use the for() instruction in this way:
for(obj in idx) alert(obj[idx]);
You'll see that you get loads of data this way. Without the new Address() it would probably not be that bad.
Serialization won't help you here...
You might give a try to JsonObject library, and maybe go through this in depth explanation how to do what you are trying to do using mirrors.
Related
for (i in 0 until result.size){ result[i].config= addConfig(taskNames!![i],processKeys!![i]) }
Here result is a list of class which has datamember config and tasNames and processKeys are list of string.
Is there a way in kotlin to map result.config with respective taskNames and processKeys without using traditional loop and mentioning length of result.I am new to kotlin.
class Process {
var processKey: String? = null
var task: List<Task>? = null}
class Task {
var taskName: String? = null
var processVariables: List<ProcessVariable>? = null}
class ProcessVariable {
var name: String? = null
var label: String? = null
var applicableValue: List<String>? = null}
Result is already present with datamember config pf type ProcessVariable
If I understand your problem correctly, you need to combine 3 lists.
So iterating over the lists may be easier to understand than some clever way of list transformations.
You can get rid of the traditional for loop, so you don't need to calculate the size of the loop:
result.forEachIndexed {
i, resultData -> resultData.config = addConfig(taskNames[i], processKeys[i])
}
If you want to combine two lists, you can use the zip method:
val configList = taskNames.zip(processKeys) {tsk, prc -> addConfig(tsk, prc)}
In your example, the result-object was already existing. Maybe it is easier to create new result-objects:
val results = configList.map {
Result(config = it)
}
I want to use flatbuf to save aquadtree structure. here is my fbs file
namespace com.generated;
struct Obj {
hash:int;
geohash:uint64;
}
table Tree {
obj:[Obj];
id:int;
nodes:[Tree];
}
root_type Tree;
and here is the code that I am using to make objects
var builder = new flatbuffers.Builder(0)
var Tree = com.generated.Tree;
var Obj = com.generated.Obj;
Tree.startTree(builder);
Tree.addId(builder, builder.createInt(1));
Tree.addObj(builder, Obj.createObj(builder, 36, 42));
var offset = Tree.endTree(builder);
Tree.startTree(builder);
Tree.addId(builder, builder.createInt(1));
Tree.addObj(builder, Obj.createObj(builder, 36, 42));
offset = Tree.endTree(builder);
builder.finish(offset);
well in code above I have two problems, First the builder.createInt(1) does not exist. So I do not know how I can create an Integer. And my second problem is with the making an array of Trees, I am currently after Tree.end start another Tree with the same builder. Is this the correct way to do that?
I'm trying to create a purely JXA-ObjC approach to getting pixel colors from image paths. Here's what I have currently:
ObjC.import('Foundation')
ObjC.import('AppKit')
var c_filePath = $(picturePath)
var c_img = $.NSImage.alloc.initWithContentsOfFile(c_filePath)
if(c_img==$()){
return []
}
var c_point = $.NSMakePoint(x,y)
c_img.lockFocus() //Error - Undefined is not a function...?
var c_color = NSReadPixel(c_point)
c_img.unlockFocus() //Error - Undefined is not a function...?
c_img.release()
var r; var g; var b; var a
c_img.getRegGreenBlueAlpha($(r),$(g),$(b),$(a))
r = ObjC.unwrap(r)
g = ObjC.unwrap(g)
b = ObjC.unwrap(b)
a = ObjC.unwrap(a)
This code is heavily based off of the code found here.
However, as shown above c_img.lockFocus() is undefined according to JXA. Oddly I can get access to c_img.lockFocusFlipped(), however I'm not sure how to use this and/or if it can be used for the same purpose as lockFocus().
Is there an obvious problem here? Or is there a better way to get the pixel colour of an image?
Any help would be grateful.
It looks like I am too used to methods requiring parenthesis. TylerGaw however told me that this is not necessarily the case.
ObjC.import('Foundation')
ObjC.import('AppKit')
var c_filePath = $(picturePath)
var c_img = $.NSImage.alloc.initWithContentsOfFile(c_filePath)
if(c_img==$()){
return []
}
var c_point = $.NSMakePoint(x,y)
c_img.lockFocus
var c_color = NSReadPixel(c_point)
c_img.unlockFocus
c_img.release
appears to work as expected.
I'm having trouble understanding how to set with $priority in angularfire. I am trying to add a username with the key as username.
For example if I try:
var object = {user : "name",
$priority : "this"};
var ref = new Firebase(FIREBASE_URL + 'users');
var newBar = $firebase(ref);
newBar.$set(username, object);
The firebase set fails because of the invalid character "$" in priority.
I understand that instead I could try :
var object = {user : "name",
$priority : "this"};
var ref = new Firebase(FIREBASE_URL + 'users');
var newBar = $firebase(ref).$asArray();
newBar.$add(object);
This succeeds in adding the object to the array, but doesn't give me the opportunity to set the key to username as I require.
I can't think of any other way to achieve this currently. Is there any way to use set that allows me to set $priority? Or any alternative method to achieve the same?
Thanks
$priority is a property that exists on synchronized objects and records inside a synchronized array. As you've noted, it's not an allowed key in firebase data, so using it with $firebase::$set doesn't make sense here (since $set takes a valid json object which is stored directly into Firebase). Reading the API specifications can be a big help here.
There is also no need to create a synchronized binding for this use case. Just use the existing Firebase reference:
var ref = new Firebase(URL);
ref.child(username).set(object, function(error){ /* ... */ });
If there is some use case for working within a synchronized binding, then just use the Firebase meta property .priority:
var object = {user: "name", ".priority": "this"};
var ref = new Firebase(URL);
var sync = $firebase(ref);
sync.$set(object).then(/* ... */);
In case anyone else is looking at this, I have now taken the approach of using set first and then setting priority thereafter like this:
var object = {user : "name",
$priority : "this"};
var username = "user1";
var ref = new Firebase(FIREBASE_URL + 'users');
var newBar = $firebase(ref);
newBar.$set(username, object).then(function(){
var ref2 = new Firebase(FIREBASE_URL + 'users/' + username);
var newBar2 = $firebase(ref2).$asObject();
newBar2.$loaded().then(function(){
newBar2.$priority = authUser.uid;
newBar2.$save();
});
});
jsonStoreInit = function(pSuccess, pFailure){
collections={};
collections['objects'] = {};
var options = {};
options.localKeyGen = false;
options.clear = false;
options.username = app.username;
options.password = app.password;
options.additionalSearchFields = {key: 'string'};
WL.JSONStore.init(collections, options)
.then(pSuccess)
.fail(pFailure);
};
putObject = function(pObject) {
var keyValue = pObject.getKey();
var object = {myObject : pObject.getKey()};
var options = {};
//options.additionalSearchFields = {key : keyValue};
WL.JSONStore.get("objects")
.add(object, options);
};
I'm on WL 6.0 FP 1
In the code sample above jsonStoreInit is what I use to init my store including the options.additionalSearchFields.
When I come to add the objects in the putObject funciton it works fine with the additionalSearchFields commented out, but when I uncomment it to add the additional fields I get an error
[wl.jsonstore] {"src":"store","err":21,"msg":"INVALID_ADD_INDEX_KEY","col":"objects","usr":"xxxx","doc":{},"res":{}}
When I look this error message up all I get is
21 INVALID_ADD_INDEX_KEY
Problem with additional search fields.
Which I had kinda figured ... can anyone provide any help on this ...
I don't need to you fix my code but if you could point me to a working example that would be excellent.
Many thanks, ownimage
The person that asked the question solved it, but I'm leaving this answer in case someone is wondering how to pass data that uses additionalSearchFields.
Example:
var data = {hello: 'world'};
WL.JSONStore.get('collection').add(data, {additionalSearchFields: {key: 'value'}})
The example assumes the collection was created with a search field for hello as string and an additional search field for key as string. It also assumes there's a collection initialized called collection.