Calling a non-bean property method in FreeMarker - javabeans

In Freemarker we typically do stuff like this..
class User{
private String name;
public String getName()...
pubilc void setName(String name)....
}
Then our Freemarker code calls the property name like this...
<strong>Hello ${user.name}</strong>
How about if we want to call a method in user called "generateUserToken" like this?
class User{
private String name;
public String getName()...
public void setName(String name)....
public String generateUserToken(){
return "Hello World";
}
}
Now if I try to call the Freemarker code like this I get an error...
<a style="font-size: 20px" href="${obj.generateUserToken}">VIEW USER</a>
Caused by: freemarker.core.InvalidReferenceException: Expression
obj.generateUserToken is undefined on line 63, column 36 in
user_page.ftl.
Does this mean all methods Freemarker accesses (using the default BeanWrapper) must conform to bean property naming conventions?

You should be able to do obj.generateUserToken() in templates. Note the (); without that you just get the method, but don't call it. But there's some other problem in your case because it says "generateUserToken" is undefined. It's most certainly that the method doesn't come from a public class or interface.

Related

Why does ByteBuddy tell me that there is an ambiguity in my interceptor methods when there is only one such method?

(Trying to keep this simple.)
I have a (partial) ByteBuddy recipe like this:
builder
.method(someMatcher())
.intercept(MethodDelegation.to(this.interceptor));
I have an "interceptor" class defined like this:
private static final class Interceptor {
private Interceptor() {
super();
}
#RuntimeType
private final Object doSomething(#This final Proxy<?> proxy,
#SuperCall final Callable<?> callable,
#Origin final String methodSignature) throws Exception {
final Object proxiedInstance = proxy.getProxiedInstance();
// TODO: logic
return callable.call(); // for now
}
}
(The interceptor method needs to be non-static for various reasons not important here.)
When I create an instance of this ByteBuddy-defined class and call a simple public void blork() method on it, I get:
Cannot resolve ambiguous delegation of public void com.foo.TestExplorations$Frob.blork() to net.bytebuddy.implementation.bind.MethodDelegationBinder$MethodBinding$Builder$Build#3d101b05 or net.bytebuddy.implementation.bind.MethodDelegationBinder$MethodBinding$Builder$Build#1a9efd25
How can there be ambiguity when there is only one interceptor? What have I done wrong?
Byte Buddy just adds a method call to the instrumented class which needs to be able to see the target class. If it is private, it is ignored and Byte Buddy searches further up the hierarchy where it finally consideres the methods of Object which are all equally unsuited but therefore an ambiguity exception is thrown instead of an exception that no method could be bound.

Kotlin object, an implementation vs instance

In Objects in Kotlin: Create safe singletons in one line of code (KAD 27) Antonio Leiva states:
In fact, an object is just a data type with a single implementation.
I would expect to see the term instance rather than implementation used here. Is there some nuance that I am missing?
Sure it does have a single instance after all, but I believe what they meant to say is that whatever you write in an object is final and you can not override it. Even if you make it open(for argument purpose), you can not make an anonymous object out of it since the anonymous class can't be used on a SingleTon instance.
So " data type with a single implementation" means, whatever you write is the final implementation. An instance is, after all, a result of some implementation.
For reference, I am adding a decompiled code of object declaration.
public final class Test {
#NotNull
private static final String testMember = "Test";
public static final Test INSTANCE;
#NotNull
public final String getTestMember() {
return testMember;
}
private Test() {
}
static {
Test var0 = new Test();
INSTANCE = var0;
testMember = "Test";
}
}

NSubstitute throws CouldNotSetReturnDueToTypeMismatchException when mocking Query on NHibernate Session

I have a repository offering a GetAll method which again calls the Query extension method on the ISession instance of NHibernate.
public ICollection<Product> GetAll()
{
return _session.Query<Product>().ToList();
}
My unit test looks like this:
[Test]
public void GetAllReturnsCollectionFromSession()
{
IQueryable<Product> productList = new ProductListBuilder().Build().AsQueryable();
_fixture.Session.Query<Product>().Returns(productList);
var sut = _fixture.CreateSut();
var result = sut.GetAll();
Assert.AreSame(productList, result);
_fixture.Session.Received().Query<Product>();
}
In the _fixture.Session.Query().Returns(productList) statement, NSubstitute throws the following exception:
NSubstitute.Exceptions.CouldNotSetReturnDueToTypeMismatchException : Can not return value of type IQueryable`1Proxy for ISession.GetSessionImplementation (expected type ISessionImplementor).
Make sure you called Returns() after calling your substitute (for example: mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(value)),
and that you are not configuring other substitutes within Returns() (for example, avoid this: mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(ConfigOtherSub())).
If you substituted for a class rather than an interface, check that the call to your substitute was on a virtual/abstract member.
Return values cannot be configured for non-virtual/non-abstract members.
Correct use:
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(returnValue);
Potentially problematic use:
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(ConfigOtherSub());
Instead try:
var returnValue = ConfigOtherSub();
mySub.SomeMethod().Returns(returnValue);
at NSubstitute.Core.ConfigureCall.CheckResultIsCompatibleWithCall(IReturn valueToReturn, ICallSpecification spec)
at NSubstitute.Core.ConfigureCall.SetResultForLastCall(IReturn valueToReturn, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.Core.CallRouter.LastCallShouldReturn(IReturn returnValue, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.Core.SubstitutionContext.LastCallShouldReturn(IReturn value, MatchArgs matchArgs)
at NSubstitute.SubstituteExtensions.Returns[T](MatchArgs matchArgs, T returnThis, T[] returnThese)
at NSubstitute.SubstituteExtensions.ReturnsForAnyArgs[T](T value, T returnThis, T[] returnThese)
at Statoil.Wellcom.DataLayer.Implementation.Oracle.UnitTests.Repositories.DwapplicationRepositoryTests.GetAllReturnsCollectionFromSession() in C:\git\WELLCOM\source\Statoil.Wellcom.DataLayer.Implementation.Oracle.UnitTests\Repositories\DwapplicationRepositoryTests.cs:line 123
It looks like NSubstitute is unable to set the return value due to Query being an extension method. How would I go about mocking the extension method call on the ISession?
The easiest solution is to wrap your ISession in another interface/concrete class so you can stub that out:
public interface ISessionWrapper
{
IQueryable<T> Query<T>();
}
public class SessionWrapper : ISessionWrapper
{
private readonly ISession _session;
public SessionWrapper(ISession session)
{
_session = session;
}
public IQueryable<T> Query<T>()
{
return _session.Query<T>();
}
}
There is no way to mock extension method with NSubstitute, however if you know what extension method is using inside, than you can mock that. Your test will use extension method on mocked object and eventually it will use mocked method. Difficult part is to know what is going on inside.
It worked for me in projects, where I knew all the source code and I could check what's inside.

Returning a class object in java equivalent for objective-C

I have a Java class where I'm returning the class objects using the add method. I'm trying to write an equivalent Obj-C method. Should I have to declare the objective C method as void and update the class variables inside the method?
public class TesCodeRequest{
private String apiKey;
private String apiSecret;
private String endpoint;
public TesCodeRequest(String apiKey, String apiSecret, String endpoint) {
//initialization done here
}
public TesCodeRequest add(String endpoint, Object... fields) {
//method
}
}
Expected add method in Obj-c
-(void)add:(NSString *)endPoint andObject:(NSArray *field{
//endpoint and other variables to be updated here.
}
If I understand you right, you should declare init method with you parameter (if you parameters is private, otherwise you can assign it after standart init) and call it form add:
-(TesCodeRequest *)add:(NSString *)endPoint andObject:(NSArray *field{
//endpoint and other variables to be updated here.
TesCodeRequest *testCodeRequest = [[TesCodeRequest alloc] initWithEndPoint:endPoint ...];
return testCodeRequest;
}
If you want call this method without create instance of TesCodeRequest, use class method (+(TesCodeRequest *)add:(NSString *)endPoint andObject:(NSArray *field{)

Inheriting ConstructorArguments in Ninject

I'm trying to find a method of passing a constructor argument to the constructors of child classes.
These objects are immutable so I'd prefer to use constructor arguments.
The issue I have encountered is that ConstructorArgument does not inherit to child instantiations and the following statements are not interchangeable:
_parsingProcessor = _kernel.Get<IParsingProcessor>(new ConstructorArgument("dataFilePath", dataFilePath);
and
_parsingProcessor = _kernel.Get<IParsingProcessor>(new Parameter("dataFilePath", dataFilePath, true);
So, how can get an inheritable ConstructorArgument and when does it makes sense, if ever, to new the Parameter class?
Yes, you can do this, but it's probably not what you really want. If the container is not actually responsible for instantiating its own dependencies, then its dependencies probably shouldn't be sharing its constructor arguments - it just doesn't make sense.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to do, and the recommended approach is to create a unique binding specifically for your one container, and use the WhenInjectedInto conditional binding syntax, as in the example below:
public class Hello : IHello
{
private readonly string name;
public Hello(string name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, {0}!", name);
}
}
This is the class that takes a constructor argument which we want to modify, depending on who is asking for an IHello. Let's say it's this boring container class:
public class MyApp : IApp
{
private readonly IHello hello;
public MyApp(IHello hello)
{
this.hello = hello;
}
public virtual void Run()
{
hello.SayHello();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Now, here's how you do up the bindings:
public class MainModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IApp>().To<MyApp>();
Bind<IHello>().To<Hello>()
.WithConstructorArgument("name", "Jim");
Bind<IHello>().To<Hello>()
.WhenInjectedInto<MyApp>()
.WithConstructorArgument("name", "Bob");
}
}
Basically all this binding is doing is saying the name should be "Jim" unless it's being requested by Hello, which in this case it is, so instead it will get the name "Bob".
If you are absolutely certain that you truly want cascading behaviour and understand that this is very dangerous and brittle, you can cheat using a method binding. Assuming that we've now added a name argument to the MyApp class for some unspecified purpose, the binding would be:
Bind<IHello>().ToMethod(ctx =>
ctx.Kernel.Get<Hello>(ctx.Request.ParentContext.Parameters
.OfType<ConstructorArgument>()
.Where(c => c.Name == "name")
.First()));
Please, please, make sure you are positive that this is what you want before doing it. It looks easy but it is also very likely to break during a simple refactoring, and 95% of the "customized dependency" scenarios I've seen can be addressed using the WhenInjectedInto binding instead.