I realize the title is crazy, but it really is the best I could think of. If anyone has better suggestions please leave them in the comments and I'll edit.
This question is a followup to the question asked here : Drools Constraint object other than P is found in collection
For those who don't want to click, that post describes the solution to the situation in which you want to know if there is a fact of CustomType which has a member field containing a value other than P. The Solution to this problem ended up being the following:
$c: CustomType()
exists Object(this != objectP) from $c.collection
The above code works great. My problem is that I want to know when there does not exist an object of type CustomType with this property. Now, since line 2 relies on a bound variable given in line 1, we cannot simply negate line 1 with a not operator. Doing so would throw a runtime exception. The following is how I intuitively want to write the code, but keep in mind it doesn't work:
not $c: CustomType()
exists Object(this != objectP) from $c.collection
I cannot simply negate line 2, because then the rule would require the existence of at least one object of CustomType. I want to know when the first code example is not the case.
My inner drooler tells me the original Solution might be flawed. Ideally we would want to express line 2 within the parentheses() of the CustomType. This would be expressing something more along the lines of "there is a CustomType with the property" rather than "There is a CustomType, and there is an Object with the property". The former we could negate with a not operator, but I'm not sure what to do with the latter.
When you need to work with constraints such as these, which need to be expressed in multiple lines, and negations of them, I think you're moving into the world of inference and truth maintenance:
http://blog.athico.com/2010/01/drools-inference-and-truth-maintenance.html
i.e. Your rules could be something like:
rule "Determine presence of non-P objects" when
$c: CustomType()
exists Object(this != objectP) from $c.collection
then
insertLogical( new ContainsNonP($c) );
end
rule "There are some non-P objects" when
$c: CustomType()
exists ContainsNonP(customType == $c)
then
...
end
rule "There are no non-P objects" when
$c: CustomType()
not exists ContainsNonP(customType == $c)
then
...
end
Note that the final rule above may activate if the first rule has not yet activated. If the order of activations is important to your rules, you may wish to define some salience.
Related
I have this armor table, that has three fields to identify individual designs: make, model and version.
I have to implement a search feature for our software, that lets a user search armors according to various criteria, among which their design.
Now, the users' idea of a design is a single string that contains make, model and version concatenated, so the entry is that single string. Let's say they want to look up the specifications for make FH, model TT, version 27, they'll think of (and type) "FHTT27".
We use an IQueryOver object, upon which we add successive conditions according to the criteria. For the design, our code is
z_quoQuery = z_quoQuery.And(armor => armor.make + armor.model + armor.version == z_strDesign);
Which raises an InvalidOperationException, "variable 'armor' of type 'IArmor' referenced from scope '', but it is not defined".
This is described as a bug here: https://github.com/mbdavid/LiteDB/issues/637
After a lot of trial and error, it seems that syntaxs that don't use the armor variable first raise that exception.
Obviously, I have to go another route at least for now, but after searching for some time I can't seem to find how. I thought of using something like
z_quoQuery = z_quoQuery.And(armor => armor.make == z_strDesign.SubString(0, 2).
And(armor => armor.model == z_strDesign.SubString(2, 2).
And(armor => armor.version == z_strDesign.SubString(4, 2);
Unfortunately, the fields are liable to have variable lengths. For instance, another set of values for make, model, and version might be, respectively, "NGI", "928", and "RX", that the code above would parse wrong. So I can't bypass the difficulty that way. Nor can I use a RegEx.
Neither can I make up a property in my Armor class that would concatenate all three properties, since it cannot be converted to SQL by NHibernate.
Has someone an idea of how to do it?
Maybe I should use an explicit SQL condition here, but how would it mix with other conditions?
It seems you can use Projections.Concat to solve your issue:
z_quoQuery = z_quoQuery.And(armor => Projections.Concat(armor.make, armor.model, armor.version) == z_strDesign);
The large majority of SonarLint rules that I've come across in Java seemed plausible and justified. However, ever since I've started using SonarLint for VB.NET, I've come across several rules that left me questioning their usefulness or even whether or not they are working correctly.
I'd like to know if this is simply a problem of me using some VB.NET constructs in a suboptimal way or whether the rule really is flawed.
(Apologies if this question is a little longer. I didn't know if I should create a separate question for each individual rule.)
The following rules I found to leave some cases unconsidered that would actually turn up as false-positives:
S1871: Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
I found this one to bring up a lot of false-positives for me, because sometimes the order in which the conditions are checked actually does matter. Take the following pseudo code as example:
If conditionA() Then
doSomething()
ElseIf conditionB() AndAlso conditionC() Then
doSomethingElse()
ElseIf conditionD() OrElse conditionE() Then
doYetAnotherThing()
'... feel free to have even more cases in between here
Else Then
doSomething() 'Non-compliant
End If
If I wanted to follow this Sonar rule and still make the code behave the same way, I'd have to add the negated version of each ElseIf-condition to the first If-condition.
Another example would be the following switch:
Select Case i
Case 0 To 40
value = 0
Case 41 To 60
value = 1
Case 61 To 80
value = 3
Case 81 To 100
value = 5
Case Else
value = 0 'Non-compliant
There shouldn't be anything wrong with having that last case in a switch. True, I could have initialized value beforehand to 0 and ignored that last case, but then I'd have one more assignment operation than necessary. And the Java ruleset has conditioned me to always put a default case in every switch.
S1764: Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
This rule does not seem to take into account that some functions may return different values every time you call them, for instance collections where accessing an element removes it from the collection:
stack.Push(stack.Pop() / stack.Pop()) 'Non-compliant
I understand if this is too much of an edge case to make special exceptions for it, though.
The following rules I am not actually sure about:
S3385: "Exit" statements should not be used
While I agree that Return is more readable than Exit Sub, is it really bad to use a single Exit For to break out of a For or a For Each loop? The SonarLint rule for Java permits the use of a single break; in a loop before flagging it as an issue. Is there a reason why the default in VB.NET is more strict in that regard? Or is the rule built on the assumption that you can solve nearly all your loop problems with LINQ extension methods and lambdas?
S2374: Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This rule basically states that unsigned types should not be used at all because they "have different arithmetic operators than signed ones - operators that few developers understand". In my code I am only using UInteger for ID values (because I don't need negative values and a Long would be a waste of memory in my case). They are stored in List(Of UInteger) and only ever compared to other UIntegers. Is this rule even relevant to my case (are comparisons part of these "arithmetic operators" mentioned by the rule) and what exactly would be the pitfall? And if not, wouldn't it be better to make that rule apply to arithmetic operations involving unsigned types, rather than their declaration?
S2355: Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Maybe I don't know VB.NET well enough, but how exactly would I satisfy this rule in the following case where I want to create a fixed-size array where the initialization length is only known at runtime? Is this a false-positive?
Dim myObjects As Object() = New Object(someOtherList.Count - 3) {} 'Non-compliant
Sure, I could probably just use a List(Of Object). But I am curious anyway.
Thanks for raising these points. Note that not all rules apply every time. There are cases when we need to balance between false positives/false negatives/real cases. For example with identical expressions on both sides of an operator rule. Is it a bug to have the same operands? No it's not. If it was, then the compiler would report it. Is it a bad smell, is it usually a mistake? Yes in many cases. See this for example in Roslyn. Should we tune this rule to exclude some cases? Yes we should, there's nothing wrong with 2 << 2. So there's a lot of balancing that needs to happen, and we try to settle for an implementation that brings the most value for the users.
For the points you raised:
Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
This rule generally states that having two blocks of code match exactly is a bad sign. Copy-pasted code should be avoided for many reasons, for example if you need to fix the code in one place, you'll need to fix it in the other too. You're right that adding negated conditions would be a mess, but if you extract each condition into its own method (and call the negated methods inside them) with proper names, then it would probably improves the readability of your code.
For the Select Case, again, copy pasted code is always a bad sign. In this case you could do this:
Select Case i
...
Case 0 To 40
Case Else
value = 0 ' Compliant
End Select
Or simply remove the 0-40 case.
Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
I think this is a corner case. See the first paragraph of the answer.
"Exit" statements should not be used
It's almost always true that by choosing another type of loop, or changing the stop condition, you can get away without using any "Exit" statements. It's good practice to have a single exit point from loops.
Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This is a legacy rule from SonarQube VB.NET, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be enabled by default in SonarLint. I created the following ticket in our JIRA: https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1074
Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Yes, it seems to be a false positive, we shouldn't report on array creations when the size is explicitly specified. https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1075
Okay, what I really wanted to do is, I have an Array and I want to choose a random element from it. The obvious thing to do is get an integer from a random number generator between 0 and the length minus 1, which I have working already, and then applying Array.get, but that returns a Maybe a. (It appears there's also a package function that does the same thing.) Coming from Haskell, I get the type significance that it's protecting me from the case where my index was out of range, but I have control over the index and don't expect that to happen, so I'd just like to assume I got a Just something and somewhat forcibly convert to a. In Haskell this would be fromJust or, if I was feeling verbose, fromMaybe (error "some message"). How should I do this in Elm?
I found a discussion on the mailing list that seems to be discussing this, but it's been a while and I don't see the function I want in the standard library where the discussion suggests it would be.
Here are some pretty unsatisfying potential solutions I found so far:
Just use withDefault. I do have a default value of a available, but I don't like this as it gives the completely wrong meaning to my code and will probably make debugging harder down the road.
Do some fiddling with ports to interface with Javascript and get an exception thrown there if it's Nothing. I haven't carefully investigated how this works yet, but apparently it's possible. But this just seems to mix up too many dependencies for what would otherwise be simple pure Elm.
(answering my own question)
I found two more-satisfying solutions:
Roll my own partially defined function, which was referenced elsewhere in the linked discussion. But the code kind of feels incomplete this way (I'd hope the compiler would warn me about incomplete pattern matches some day) and the error message is still unclear.
Pattern-match and use Debug.crash if it's a Nothing. This appears similar to Haskell's error and is the solution I'm leaning towards right now.
import Debug
fromJust : Maybe a -> a
fromJust x = case x of
Just y -> y
Nothing -> Debug.crash "error: fromJust Nothing"
(Still, the module name and description also make me hesitate because it doesn't seem like the "right" method intended for my purposes; I want to indicate true programmer error instead of mere debugging.)
Solution
The existence or use of a fromJust or equivalent function is actually code smell and tells you that the API has not been designed correctly. The problem is that you're attempting to make a decision on what to do before you have the information to do it. You can think of this in two cases:
If you know what you're supposed to do with Nothing, then the solution is simple: use withDefault. This will become obvious when you're looking at the right point in your code.
If you don't know what you're supposed to do in the case where you have Nothing, but you still want to make a change, then you need a different way of doing so. Instead of pulling the value out of the Maybe use Maybe.map to change the value while keeping the Maybe. As an example, let's say you're doing the following:
foo : Maybe Int -> Int
foo maybeVal =
let
innerVal = fromJust maybeVal
in
innerVal + 2
Instead, you'll want this:
foo : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
foo maybeVal =
Maybe.map (\innerVal -> innerVal + 2) maybeVal
Notice that the change you wanted is still done in this case, you've simply not handled the case where you have a Nothing. You can now pass this value up and down the call chain until you've hit a place where it's natural to use withDefault to get rid of the Maybe.
What's happened is that we've separated the concerns of "How do I change this value" and "What do I do when it doesn't exist?". We deal with the former using Maybe.map and the latter with Maybe.withDefault.
Caveat
There are a small number of cases where you simply know that you have a Just value and need to eliminate it using fromJust as you described, but those cases should be few and far between. There's quite a few that actually have a simpler alternative.
Example: Attempting to filter a list and get the value out.
Let's say you have a list of Maybes that you want the values of. A common strategy might be:
foo : List (Maybe a) -> List a
foo hasAnything =
let
onlyHasJustValues = List.filter Maybe.isJust hasAnything
onlyHasRealValues = List.map fromJust onlyHasJustValues
in
onlyHasRealValues
Turns out that even in this case, there are clean ways to avoid fromJust. Most languages with a collection that has a map and a filter have a method to filter using a Maybe built in. Haskell has Maybe.mapMaybe, Scala has flatMap, and Elm has List.filterMap. This transforms your code into:
foo : List (Maybe a) -> List a
foo hasAnything =
let
onlyHasRealValues = List.filterMap (\x -> x) hasAnything
in
onlyHasRealValues
Is there any way to check if 2 linked lists have the same elements regardless of order.
edit question:
I have fixed the code and given some more details:
this is the method that compares 2 lists
compare: object2
^ ((mylist asBag) = ((objetc2 getList) asBag)).
the method belongs to the class myClass that has a field : myLList. myList is a linkedList of type element.
I have compiled it in the workspace:
a: = element new id:1.
b:= element new id:2.
c:=element new id:3.
d: = element new id:1.
e:= element new id:2.
f:=element new id:3.
elements1 := myClass new.
elements addFirst:a.
elements addFirst:b.
elements addFirst:c.
elements2 := myClass new.
elements addFirst:d.
elements addFirst:e.
elements addFirst:f.
Transcript show: (elements1 compare:elements2).
so I am getting false.. seems like it checks for equality by reference rather than equality by value..
So I think the correct question to ask would be: how can I compare 2 Bags by value? I have tried the '=='..but it also returned false.
EDIT:
The question changed too much - I think it deserves a new question for itself.
The whole problem here is that (element new id: 1) = (element new id: 1) is giving you false. Unless it's particular class (or superclasses) redefine it, the = message is resolved comparing by identity (==) by default. That's why your code only works with a collection being compared with itself.
Test it with, for example, lists of numbers (which have the = method redefined to reflect what humans understand by numeric equality), and it will work.
You should redefine your element's class' = (and hashCode) methods for this to work.
Smalltalk handles everything by reference: all there exist is an object, which know (reference) other objects.
It would be wrong to say that two lists are equivalent if they are in different order, as the order is part of what a list means. A list without an order is what we call a bag.
The asBag message (as all of the other as<anotherCollectionType> messages) return a new collection of the named type with all the elements of the receiver. So, #(1 2 3 2) is an Array of four elements, and #(1 2 3 2) asBag is a bag containing those four elements. As it's a Bag, it doesn't have any particular order.
When you do bagA := Bag new. you are creating a new Bag instance, and reference it with bagA variable. But then you do bagA := myList asBag, so you lose the reference to the previous bag - the first assignment doesn't do anything useful in your code, as you don't use that bag.
Saying aBool ifTrue: [^true] ifFalse: [^false] has exactly the same meaning as saying ^aBool - so we prefer just to say that. And, as you only create those two new bags to compare them, you could simplify your whole method like this:
compareTo: anotherList
^ myList asBag = anotherList asBag
Read it out loud: this object (whatever it is) compares to another list if it's list without considering order is the same than the other list without order.
The name compareTo: is kind of weird for returning a boolean (containsSameElements: would be more descriptive), but you get the point much faster with this code.
Just to be precise about your questions:
1) It doesn't work because you're comparing bag1 and bag2, but just defined bagA and bagB.
2) It's not efficient to create those two extra bags just because, and to send the senseless ifTrue: message, but other way it's OK. You may implement a better way to compare the lists, but it's way better to rely on the implementation of asBag and the Bag's = message being performant.
3) I think you could see the asBag source code, but, yes, you can assume it to be something like:
Collection>>asBag
|instance|
instance := Bag new.
instance addAll: self.
^instance
And, of course, the addAll: method could be:
Collection>>addAll: anotherCollection
anotherCollection do: [ :element | self add: element ]
So, yes - it creates a new Bag with all the receiver's elements.
mgarciaisaia's answer was good... maybe too good! This may sound harsh, but I want you to succeed if you're serious about learning, so I reiterate my suggestion from another question that you pick up a good Smalltalk fundamentals textbook immediately. Depending on indulgent do-gooders to rework your nonsensical snippets into workable code is a very inefficient way to learn to program ;)
EDIT: The question has changed dramatically. The following spoke to the original three-part question, so I paraphrased the original questions inline.
Q: What is the problem? A: The problem is lack of fundamental Smalltalk understanding.
Q: Is converting to bags an efficient way to make the comparison? A: Although it's probably not efficient, don't worry about that now. In general, and especially at the beginning when you don't have a good intuition about it, avoid premature optimization - "make it work", and then only "make it fast" if justified by real-world profiling.
Q: How does #asBag work? A: The implementation of #asBag is available in the same living world as your own code. The best way to learn is to view the implementation directly (perhaps by "browsing implementors" if you aren't sure where it's defined") and answer your own question!! If you can't understand that implementation, see #1.
This might be an odd question, but I'm looking for a word to use in a function name. I'm normally good at coming up with succinct, meaningful function names, but this one has me stumped so I thought I'd appeal for help.
The function will take some desired state as an argument and compare it to the current state. If no change is needed, the function will exit normally without doing anything. Otherwise, the function will take some action to achieve the desired state.
For example, if wanted to make sure the front door was closed, i might say:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
What word or term should use in place of the something? I'd like it to be short, readable, and minimize the astonishment factor.
A couple clarifying points...
I would want someone calling the function to intuitively know they didn't need to wrap the function an 'if' that checks the current state. For example, this would be bad:
if my_house.front_door_is_open():
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
Also, they should know that the function won't throw an exception if the desired state matches the current state. So this should never happen:
try:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
except DoorWasAlreadyClosedException:
pass
Here are some options I've considered:
my_house.set_front_door('closed')
my_house.setne_front_door('closed') # ne=not equal, from the setne x86 instruction
my_house.ensure_front_door('closed')
my_house.configure_front_door('closed')
my_house.update_front_door('closed')
my_house.make_front_door('closed')
my_house.remediate_front_door('closed')
And I'm open to other forms, but most I've thought of don't improve readability. Such as...
my_house.ensure_front_door_is('closed')
my_house.conditionally_update_front_door('closed')
my_house.change_front_door_if_needed('closed')
Thanks for any input!
I would use "ensure" as its succinct, descriptive and to the point:
EnsureCustomerExists(CustomerID)
EnsureDoorState(DoorStates.Closed)
EnsureUserInterface(GUIStates.Disabled)
Interesting question!
From the info that you have supplied, it seems to me that setstate (or simply set, if you are setting other things than states) would be fine, though ensure is good if you want to really emphasize the redundancy of an if.
To me it is however perfectly intuitive that setting a state does not throw an exception, or require an if. Think of setting the state of any other variable:
In C:
int i;
i = 5; // Would you expect this to throw an exception if i was already 5?
// Would you write
if (i != 5)
i = 5;
// ?
Also it only takes about one sentence to document this behaviour:
The function does nothing if the
current state equals the requested
state.
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, if it is really important to you (for some reason) that the user is not confused about this, I would in fact pick ensure (or some other non-standard name). Why? Because as a user, a name like that would make me scratch my head a bit and look up the documentation ("This is more than just an ordinary set-function, apparently").
EDIT 2: Only you know how you design your programs, and which function name fits in best. From what you are saying, it seems like your setting functions sometimes throw exceptions, and you need to name a setting function that doesn't - e.g. set_missile_target. If that is the case, I think you should consider the set_if, set_when, set_cond or cond_set names. Which one would kind of depend on the rest of your code. I would also add that one line of documentation (or two, if you're generous), which clarifies the whole thing.
For example:
// Sets missile target if current target is not already the requested target,
// in which case it does nothing. No exceptions are thrown.
function cond_set_missile_target ()
or function cond_set_MissileTarget ()
or function condSet_MissileTarget ()
or function condSetMissileTarget ()
ensure is not so bad, but to me it implies only that there is additional logic required to set the state (e.g. multiple states tied together, or other complications). It helps to make the user avoid adding unnecessary ifs, but it does not help much with the exception issue. I would expect an ensure function to throw an exception sooner than a set function, since the ensure function clearly has more responsibilities for, well, ensuring that this setting operation is in fact done right.
I'd go for ensure for the function you describe. I'd also use camelCase, but I suppose you may be in a language that prefers underscores.
You could always document (shock!) your API so that others don't make the mistakes you describe.