I'm trying to solve the following problem: I have an aspect defined like this:
public aspect ComponentAspect {
declare #type : uk.co.xxx.* : #Component;
}
As expected it annotates everything in "uk.co.xxx" package, the thing is I don't need to annotate all classes in this package, only those matching certain pattern, for example I have classes ending with ...Client.java and only these I want to annotate. So I would expect code like this:
public aspect ComponentAspect {
declare #type : uk.co.xxx.workflow.*Client : #Component;
}
but of cause it is only my wishful thinking.
Any ideas how I can achieve my result?
Thanks a lot for any idea, so far I spent 2 hours without progress at all :(
Why wishful thinking? It works as you expect. You just need to be careful which packages and/or subpackages you are targetting with your type pattern.
Maybe what you really want to do is target all classes with a certain name within all subpackages of a certain package. In this case you need the .. syntax, like so:
public aspect ComponentAspect {
declare #type : uk.co.xxx.workflow..*Client : #Component;
}
I tried in one of my applications, it works like a charm.
Related
I would like to create a vscode extension which can help with unit testing and "live" debugging.
Lets say you have the following code:
/*1*/ export class Test {
/*2*/ public add(a: any, b: any): any {
/*3*/ return a + b;
/*4*/ }
/*5*/ }
Live debugging:
New option in the context menu to test the add function (e.g. something similar to current Peek Definition) where you can provide the function input and check the output in a new smaller editor.
Unit test generation:
After you wrote an input and checked the output you can simply generate a new unit test from it.
Now I'm only at the beginning of this project but it seems like getting type information is much more complicated than I expected.
First I would like to get some simple type information (based on cursor position) e.g.:
Line 1 is a class
Line 2-4 is a function
Line 5 is a class
After hours of Google search I think what I have to do is to implement my own TypeScript Language Service Plugin and use it somehow in my extension.
My questions:
Is there any extension similar to my idea which I could use?
Is there an easier way to get the type information I need?
Am I on a right track at all?
Do you have some material about how to use this language service plugin from extension?
P.S. I know that it won't be easy (e.g. several states with different visibility), but good practice for a home project.
I've recently joined a codebase that no one seemed to ever run SonarLint against, and now every test class I open in IntelliJ is highlighted like a Christmas tree - all test methods are public, even though JUnit5 is used.
Tired of removing those public modifiers manually, I decided to implement an SSR template to do that for me. However, I can't seem to make it work with method parameter annotations! (which seem to be rather usual thing with JMockit)
The best I can have thus far is this:
Open Edit->Find->Replace structurally
Paste this into Search field:
#$MethodAnnotation$
public void $MethodName$(#mockit.Injectable $ParameterType$ $Parameter$) {
$statement$;
}
Choose file type: Java - Class Member
Add filter for MethodAnnotation variable: Text=org.junit.jupiter.api.Test
Add Min=0 for statement and Parameter variables
Paste this into Replace field:
#$MethodAnnotation$
void $MethodName$(#Injectable $ParameterType$ $Parameter$) {
$statement$;
}
(mind the indentation, otherwise it will be problematic!)
Select Complete match value for Search target
Find
As you can see, the annotation is hard-coded, which of course limits the applicability of this snippet seriously.
Is this a problem with IntelliJ or rather my bad knowledge of SSR? What would be a proposed solution?
Working my way through Salesforce Trailhead code modules feels like stepping back in time (having spent the last few years working in c# and JavaScript), is there anything (a tool or modern compiler/runtime) that can infer type specifically for things like for loops like this?
List<Account> accs = [SELECT Id, Name FROM Account WHERE Name = 'Siebel'];
for(Account a : accs){
a.Name = 'Oracle';
}
You can look at the generic SObject class SObjectType class and getDescribe() calls. Also looking at Dynamic Apex might get you closer to what you are looking for. But still there are alot of limitation with the language.
Currently working on a small pet project, a Math Parser/Lexer and eventually solver for fun/learning. I've bashed out a basic prototype and am now looking to convert this into TypeScript to clean things up. Prototype can be found here https://github.com/chips5k/math-solver-prototype for those interested.
I am trying to come up with a clean interface based approach to dealing with my Tokens. I suspect i am looking at this the wrong way, but hopefully someone can offer useful advice.
In my TS design i have several interfaces, the base interface being Token, with NumericToken and FunctionToken extending these. I then have several classes that implement these interfaces such as: AdditionToken, VariableToken, NumberToken, PiToken, SineToken etc...
My problem is that in order to work with these interfaces i end up requiring methods to check the basic type e.g isNumeric, isFunction, isVariable or alternatively a direct type === TokenFactory.NUMERIC etc... This, to me, feels wrong as it basically voids the point of using an interface. I suspect that there is a nicer/cleaner more polymorphic approach i could take but unfortunately i'm out of ideas and have been unable to find info on what i am doing.
An example of where things fall apart shows itself when attempting to solve a series of tokens:
if(t.isFunction()) {
var a = stack.unshift();
var b = stack.unshift();
if(a.isNumeric() && b.isNumeric()){
result.push(tokenFactory.create(t.evaluate<number>(a.evaluate<number>, b.evaluate<number>));
} else {
//return to stack and move on, e.g can't solve x + 1 directly
}
} else {
stack.push(t);
}
Basically looking for what is considered the ideal approach for handling a scenario like this, and i suspect it may be an alternate approach to the design.
TIA!
basic type e.g isNumeric, isFunction, isVariable or alternatively a direct type === TokenFactory.NUMERIC etc... This, to me, feels wrong
Nope. This is fairly idiomatic as the type controls what functionality is there.
E.g you will see the TypeScript checker.ts littered with check on .kind (SyntaxKind) which is at TypeScript AST nodes discriminator.
Also you might want to consider adding a visitor that is recursive e.g.
function visit(item){
if (item.addition) {
return visit(item.left) + visit(item.right)
}
if (item.literal) {
return literal.value();
}
// ETC.
}
Here is a simple explanation of the problem. Keep in mind this isnt the real problem
Lets say in my language functions cannot return pointers and member vars cannot be references. Bison is complaining (with like 40 reduce/reduce problems) about not deducing if the type in type what is a function or member variable. I know it but its ridiculous to have >40 conflicts from this one line.
Class Name { ...
Type& func() {
Type* Var=0
Type What
How should i deal with this? should i use %glr-parser and set expect/expect-rr to a value? or should i use a Type that has everything and filter what is legal or not in code? It looks like my choices are have more conflicts/ambiguity VS writing more code to deal with it. I am not sure which is worse so i wonder if any of you guys had to deal with this.
You shouldn't try to express type constraints in the grammar. This was proven pretty conclusively by the Algol-68 fiasco documented by Wirth and others.