Unit testing and xdebug usage aside, I wish to have a way to throw some browser message is a value is not expected to be present.
Let's say: $className = 45;
If we have:
public function setMainClass($className) {
if (is_string($className)) {
$this->_mainClass = $className;
} else {
echo Yii::trace(CVarDumper::dumpAsString($className),'vardump');
}
}
We will get this output to the browser on development stage.
It's great.
I'm not sure however, if this is a proper way of use Yii::trace of if I'm miss using it.
Please advice.
It is not necessary to echo the call Yii::trace() (it returns void so the echo does nothing). The other recommendation is that you might consider changing category to resemble a path alias as discussed in the documentation. For example-
} else {
Yii::trace(CVarDumper::dumpAsString($className), 'application.models.MyGreatModel');
}
Related
I have userDto, contains programs, which contains actual field. Actual program can be only one. I need to get it. Than, I run this:
userDto.programs.sortedBy { it.created }.findLast { it.actual }?
Okay, but I want to foresee case, when findLast returns null, & throw exception. Please, advice, how to do it?
UPD:
ProgramType.valueOf(userDto.programs
.sortedBy { it.created }
.findLast { it.actual }
//check here
!!.programType!!).percentage
You are pretty close actually :)! What you could do is:
userDto.programs.sortedBy { it.created }.findLast { it.actual } ?: throw RuntimeException()
Or if you're trying to actually avoid throwing an error(couldn't really tell with the way question is asked), you could just do an error check like this:
userDto.programs.sortedBy { it.created }.findLast { it.actual }?.let{
//rest of your code goes here
}
Hope this helps, cheers!
how would it be possible to bypass functions that are not existing in DM
such that the main code would still run? Try/catch does not seem to work, e..g
image doSomething(number a,number b)
{
try
{
whateverfunction(a,b)
}
catch
{
continue
}
}
number a,b
doSomething(a,b)
Also conditioning wont work, e.g..
image doSomething(number a,number b)
{
if(doesfunctionexist("whateverfunction"))
{
whateverfunction(a,b)
}
}
number a,b
doSomething(a,b)
thanks in advance!
As "unknown" commands are caught by the script-interpreter, there is no easy way to do this. However, you can construct a workaround by using ExecuteScriptCommand().
There is an example tutorial to be found in this e-book, but in short, you want to do something like the following:
String scriptCallStr = "beep();\n"
scriptCallStr = "MyUnsaveFunctionCall();\n"
number exitVal
Try { exitVal = ExecuteScriptString(scriptCallStr ); }
Catch { exitVal = -1; break; }
if ( -1 == exitVal )
{
OKDialog("Sorry, couldn't do:\n" + scriptCallStr )
}
else
{
OKDialog( "All worked. Exit value: " + exitVal )
}
This works nicely and easy for simple commands and if your task is only to "verify" that a script could run.
It becomes clumsy, when you need to pass around parameters. But even then there are ways to do so. (The 'outer' script could create an object and pass the object-ID per string. Similarly, the 'inner' script can do the same and return the script-object ID as exit-value.)
Note: You can of course also put doesfunctionexist inside the test-script, if you do only want to have a "safe test", but don't actually want to execute the command.
Depending on what you need there might also be another workaround solution: Wrapper-functions in a library. This can be useful if you want to run the same script on different PCs with some of which having the functionality - most likely some microscope - while others don't.
You can make your main-script use wrapper methods and then you install different versions of the wrapper method script scripts as libraries.
void My_SpecialFunction( )
{
SpecialFunction() // use this line on PCs which have the SpecialFunction()
DoNothing() // use alternative line on PCs which don't have the SpecialFunction()
}
My_SpecialFunction( )
I have used this in the past where the same functionality (-stage movement-) required different commands on different machines.
I've just tried to write a simple test for Auth:
use Mockery as m;
...
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
$auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
public function testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard() {
$auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(false);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('dashboard.overview');
}
This is the code:
public function getHome() {
if(Auth::guest()) {
return Redirect::route('general.welcome');
}
return Redirect::route('dashboard.overview');
}
When I run, I've got the following error:
EF.....
Time: 265 ms, Memory: 13.00Mb
There was 1 error:
1) PagesControllerTest::testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome
Mockery\Exception\InvalidCountException: Method guest() from Mockery_0_Illuminate_Auth_AuthManager should be called
exactly 1 times but called 0 times.
—
There was 1 failure:
1) PagesControllerTest::testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard
Failed asserting that two strings are equal.
--- Expected
+++ Actual
## ##
-'http://localhost/dashboard/overview'
+'http://localhost/welcome'
My questions are:
Two similar test cases but why the error output differs? First one the mock Auth::guest() is not called while the second one seems to be called.
On the second test case, why does it fail?
Is there any way to write better tests for my code above? Or even better code to test.
Above test cases, I use Mockery to mock the AuthManager, but if I use the facade Auth::shoudReceive()->once()->andReturn(), then it works eventually. Is there any different between Mockery and Auth::mock facade here?
Thanks.
You're actually mocking a new instance of the Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager and not accessing the Auth facade that is being utilized by your function getHome(). Ergo, your mock instance will never get called. (Standard disclaimer that none of the following code is tested.)
Try this:
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
Auth::shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
public function testHomeWhenUserIsAuthenticatedThenRedirectToDashboard() {
Auth::shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(false);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('dashboard.overview');
}
If you check out Illuminate\Support\Facades\Facade, you'll see that it takes care of mocking for you. If you really wanted to do it the way that you were doing it (creating an instance of mock instance of Auth), you'd have to somehow inject it into the code under test. I believe that it could be done with something like this assuming that you extend from the TestCase class provided by laravel:
public function testHomeWhenUserIsNotAuthenticatedThenRedirectToWelcome() {
$this->app['auth'] = $auth = m::mock('Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager');
// above line will swap out the 'auth' facade with your facade.
$auth->shouldReceive('guest')->once()->andReturn(true);
$this->call('GET', '/');
$this->assertRedirectedToRoute('general.welcome');
}
In SourceMod, how do I check if a plugin exists? I tried the GetFeatureStatus method, but it doesn't work. Any ideas?
If a plugin has registered itself as a Library, you can check if it exists using the LibraryExists command on the name it registered. Traditionally, this name is in all lowercase, but some plugins/extensions use mixed-case, such as SteamTools (which uses "SteamTools").
Having said that, it's generally better to cache whether a library exists instead of constantly calling this command... but then a library can be unloaded or loaded on your without your knowledge. There are functions to catch that.
So, the best way is generally to do something like this (using the NativeVotes plugin as an example).
#undef REQUIRE_PLUGIN
#include <nativevotes>
//global variable
new bool:g_bNativeVotes = false;
public OnAllPluginsLoaded()
{
g_bNativeVotes = LibraryExists("nativevotes");
}
public OnLibraryAdded(const String:name[])
{
if (StrEqual(name, "nativevotes"))
{
g_bNativeVotes = true;
}
}
public OnLibraryRemoved(const String:name[])
{
if (StrEqual(name, "nativevotes"))
{
g_bNativeVotes = false;
}
}
If a plugin isn't registered as a library, you can use GetFeatureStatus to check for a particular native. The catch is in realizing that this function doesn't return a bool, but rather a FeatureStatus_ value.
For instance, here's how I'd check for a (in development) feature for the same plugin as mentioned above:
if (GetFeatureStatus(FeatureType_Native, "NativeVotes_IsVoteCommandRegistered") == FeatureStatus_Available)
{
// Do something with vote commands.
}
I wrote some code in an MVC Framework that looks something like:
class Controller_Test extends Controller
{
public function action_index()
{
$obj = new MyObject();
$errors = array();
try
{
$results = $obj->doSomething();
}
catch(MyObject_Exception $e)
{
$e->getErrors();
}
catch(Exception $e)
{
$errors[] = $e->getMessage();
}
}
My friend argues that the Controller should know nothing about MyObject, and therefore I should not catch MyObject_Exception.
He argues that the code should do something like this instead:
class Controller_Test extends Controller
{
public function action_index()
{
$obj = new MyObject();
$errors = array();
if($obj->doSomething())
{
$results = $obj->getResults();
}
else
{
$errors = $obj->getErrors();
}
}
I definitely understand his approach, but feel as though state management can lead to unintended side effects.
What is the right or preferred approach?
Edit: mistakenly put $obj->getErrors() in MyObject_Exception catch clause instead of $e->getErrors();
The debate about exceptions vs. returned error codes is a long and bloody one.
His argument breaks down in that, by using a getErrors() function, you are learning information about the object. If that is your reason for using a boolean return to indicate success, then you are wrong. In order for the Controller to handle the error properly, it has to know about the object it was touching and what the specific error was. Was it a network error? Memory error? It has to know in some way or another.
I prefer the exception model because it's cleaner and allows me to handle more errors in a more controlled fashion. It also provides a clear cut way for the data relating to an exception to be passed.
However, I disagree with your use of a function like getErrors(). Any data pertaining to the exception that would help me handle it should be included with the exception. I should not have to go hunting into the object again to get information about what went wrong.
Did the network connection timeout? The exception should contain the host/port it tried to connect to, how long it waited, and any data from the lower networking levels.
Let's do this in example (in psuedo c#):
public class NetworkController {
Socket MySocket = null;
public void EstablishConnection() {
try {
this.MySocket = new Socket("1.1.1.1",90);
this.MySocket.Open();
} catch(SocketTimeoutException ex) {
//Attempt a Single Reconnect
}
catch(InvalidHostNameException ex) {
Log("InvalidHostname");
Exit();
}
}
}
Using his method:
public class NetworkController {
Socket MySocket = null;
public Boolean EstablishConnection() {
this.MySocket = new Socket("1.1.1.1",90);
if(this.MySocket.Open()) {
return true;
} else {
switch(this.MySocket.getError()) {
case "timeout":
// Reattempt
break;
case "badhost":
Log("InvalidHostname");
break;
}
}
}
}
Ultimately, you need to know what happened to the object to know how to respond to it, and there is no sense in using some convoluted if statement set or switch-case to determine that. Use the exceptions and love them.
EDIT: I accidentally the last half of a sentence.
In general, I would say that what's important is whether the controller understands the meaning of the exception and can handle it properly. In many cases (if not most), the controller will not know how to properly handle the exception, and so should not catch and handle it.
On the other hand, the controller might reasonably be permitted to understand some specific exception like a "DatabaseUnavailableException", even if it has no idea how or why MyObject used a database. The controller might be permitted to retry the call to MyObject a certain number of times, all without knowing about how MyObject is implemented.
First of all controller is not meant for handling the underlying exceptions thrown by classes.
Even if one occurs controller should halt saying something wrong at underlying error.
This way we make sure that controller does really and only do the job of flow control.
The other classes which give controller some output should be error free unless the error is very much controller specific.