I am designing a class that stores (caches) a set of data. I want to lookup a value, if the class contains the value then use it and modify a property of the class. I am concerned about the design of the public interface.
Here is how the class is going to be used:
ClassItem *pClassItem = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (pClassItem)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
pClassItem->SetAttribute(something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However I don't want to have to expose ClassItem to this client (ClassItem is an implementation detail of MyClass).
To get round that the following could be considered:
bool found = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
myClass.ModifyAttribute(value, something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However this is inefficient as Modify will have to do the lookup again. This would suggest a lookupAndModify type of method:
bool found = myClass.LookupAndModify(value, something);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
But rolling LookupAndModify into one method seems like very poor design. It also only modifies if value is found and so the name is not only cumbersome but misleading as well.
Is there another better design that gets round this issue? Any design patterns for this (I couldn't find anything through google)?
Actually std::set<>::insert() does precisely this. If the value exists, it returns the iterator pointing to the existing item. Otherwise, the iterator where the insertion was made is returned.
It is likely that you are using a similar data structure for fast lookups anyway, so a clean public interface (calling site) will be:
myClass.SetAttribute(value, something)
which always does the right thing. MyClass handles the internal plumbing and clients don't worry about whether the value exists.
Two things.
The first solution is close.
Don't however, return ClassItem *. Return an "opaque object". An integer index or other hash code that's opaque (meaningless) to the client, but usable by the myClass instance.
Then lookup returns an index, which modify can subsequently use.
void *index = myClass.lookup( value );
if( index ) {
myClass.modify( index, value );
}
else {
myClass.add( value );
}
After writing the "primitive" Lookup, Modify and Add, then write your own composite operations built around these primitives.
Write a LookupAndModify, TryModify, AddIfNotExists and other methods built from your lower-level pieces.
This assumes that you're setting value to the same "something" in both the Modify and Add cases:
if (!myClass.AddIfNotExists(value, something)) {
// use myClass
}
Otherwise:
if (myClass.TryModify(value, something)) {
// use myClass
} else {
myClass.Add(value, otherSomething);
}
Related
Is there a way to test private methods in Raku?
I understand that one should ideally define their tests targeting the public methods, but is there a way to do it "the wrong way"? :)
I initially thought about defining a subclass for the Testing that inherited from the class I wanted to test and do the tests there, but it seems that private methods are not inherited.
Then I saw the 'trusts' routine, but I wouldn't want to reference a Testing class on any of the classes of the code.
Is there something like changing the 'private' property of a method via introspection?
What would be the best way to call/test a private method?
This can be done using introspection.
Consider this is the class you want to test:
class SomeClass {
has Int $!attribute;
method set-value(Int $value) returns Nil {
$!attribute = $value;
return;
}
method get-value returns Int {
return $!attribute;
}
# Private method
method !increase-value-by(Int $extra) returns Nil {
$!attribute += $extra;
return;
}
}
You may create a test like this:
use Test;
use SomeClass;
plan 3;
my SomeClass $some-class = SomeClass.new;
my Method:D $increase-value = $some-class.^find_private_method: 'increase-value-by';
$some-class.set-value: 1;
$increase-value($some-class, 4);
is $some-class.get-value, 5, '1+4 = 5';
$increase-value($some-class, 5);
is $some-class.get-value, 10, '5+5 = 10';
my SomeClass $a-new-class = SomeClass.new;
$a-new-class.set-value: 0;
$increase-value($a-new-class, -1);
is $a-new-class.get-value, -1, '0+(-1) = -1; The method can be used on a new class';
done-testing;
You first create an instance of the class and the use ^find_private_method to get its private Method. Then you can call that Method by passing an instance of a class as the first parameter.
There's a more complete explanation on this answer:
How do you access private methods or attributes from outside the type they belong to?
A fresh cup of tea and #Julio's and #JJ's answers inspired the following:
class SomeClass { method !private ($foo) { say $foo } }
use MONKEY-TYPING; augment class SomeClass { trusts GLOBAL }
my SomeClass $some-class = SomeClass.new;
$some-class!SomeClass::private(42); # 42
My solution tweaks the class using monkey typing. Monkey typing is a generally dodgy thing to do (hence the LOUD pragma). But it seems tailor made for a case just like this. Augment the class with a trusts GLOBAL and Bob's your Uncle.
Raku requires the SomeClass:: qualification for this to work. (Perhaps when RakuAST macros arrive there'll be a tidy way to get around that.) My inclination is to think that having to write a class qualification is OK, and the above solution is much better than the following, but YMMV...
Perhaps, instead:
use MONKEY-TYPING;
augment class SomeClass {
multi method FALLBACK ($name where .starts-with('!!!'), |args) {
.(self, |args) with $?CLASS.^find_private_method: $name.substr: 3
}
}
and then:
$some-class.'!!!private'(42); # 42
I've used:
A multi for the FALLBACK, and have required that the method name string starts with !!!;
A regular method call (. not !);
Calling the method by a string version of its name.
The multi and !!! is in case the class being tested already has one or more FALLBACK methods declared.
A convention of prepending !!! seems more or less guaranteed to ensure that the testing code will never interfere with how the class is supposed to work. (In particular, if there were some call to a private method that didn't exist, and there was existing FALLBACK handling, it would handle that case without this monkey FALLBACK getting involved.)
It should also alert anyone reading the test code that something odd is going on, in the incredibly unlikely case that something weird did start happening, either because I'm missing something that I just can't see, or because some FALLBACK code within a class just so happened to use the same convention.
Besides using introspection, you can try and use a external helper role to access all private methods and call them directly. For instance:
role Privateer {
method test-private-method ( $method-name, |c ) {
self!"$method-name"(|c);
}
}
class Privateed does Privateer {
method !private() { return "⌣" }
}
my $obj = Privateed.new;
say $obj.test-private-method( "private" );
The key here is to call a method by name, which you can do with public and private methods, although for private methods you need to use their special syntax self!.
I have a function that returns either an error message (String) or a Firestore DocumentReference. I was planning to use a class containing both and testing if the error message is non-null to detect an error and if not then the reference is valid. I thought that was far too verbose however, and then thought it may be neater to return a var. Returning a var is not allowed however. Therefore I return a dynamic and test if result is String to detect an error.
IE.
dynamic varResult = insertDoc(_sCollection,
dataRec.toJson());
if (varResult is String) {
Then after checking for compliance, I read the following from one of the gurus:
"It is bad style to explicitly mark a function as returning Dynamic (or var, or Any or whatever you choose to call it). It is very rare that you need to be aware of it (only when instantiating a generic with multiple type arguments where some are known and some are not)."
I'm quite happy using dynamic for the return value if that is appropriate, but generally I try to comply with best practice. I am also very aware of bloated software and I go to extremes to avoid it. That is why I didn't want to use a Class for the return value.
What is the best way to handle the above situation where the return type could be a String or alternatively some other object, in this case a Firestore DocumentReference (emphasis on very compact code)?
One option would be to create an abstract state class. Something like this:
abstract class DocumentInsertionState {
const DocumentInsertionState();
}
class DocumentInsertionError extends DocumentInsertionState {
final String message;
const DocumentInsertionError(this.message);
}
class DocumentInsertionSuccess<T> extends DocumentInsertionState {
final T object;
const DocumentInsertionSuccess(this.object);
}
class Test {
void doSomething() {
final state = insertDoc();
if (state is DocumentInsertionError) {
}
}
DocumentInsertionState insertDoc() {
try {
return DocumentInsertionSuccess("It worked");
} catch (e) {
return DocumentInsertionError(e.toString());
}
}
}
Full example here: https://github.com/ReactiveX/rxdart/tree/master/example/flutter/github_search
I often have a situation where I need to do:
function a1() {
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
.... // do some things
b.send()
return a - b;
}
function a2() {
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
.... // do some things, but different to above
b.send()
return a - b;
}
I feel like I am repeating myself, yet where I have ...., the methods are different, have different signatures, etc..
What do people normally do? Add an if (this type) do this stuff, else do the other stuff that is different? It doesn't seem like a very good solution either.
Polymorphism and possibly abstraction and encapsulation are your friends here.
You should specify better what kind of instructions you have on the .... // do some things part. If you're always using the same information, but doing different things with it, the solution is fairly easy using simple polymorphism. See my first revision of this answer. I'll assume you need different information to do the specific tasks in each case.
You also didn't specify if those functions are in the same class/module or not. If they are not, you can use inheritance to share the common parts and polymorphism to introduce different behavior in the specific part. If they are in the same class you don't need inheritance nor polymorphism.
In different classes
Taking into account you're stating in the question that you might need to make calls to functions with different signature depending on the implementation subclass (for instance, passing a or b as parameter depending on the case), and assuming you need to do something with the intermediate local variables (i.e. a and b) in the specific implementations:
Short version: Polymorphism+Encapsulation: Pass all the possible in & out parameters that every subclass might need to the abstract function. Might be less painful if you encapsulate them in an object.
Long Version
I'd store intermediate state in generic class' member, and pass it to the implementation methods. Alternatively you could grab the State from the implementation methods instead of passing it as an argument. Then, you can make two subclasses of it implementing the doSpecificStuff(State) method, and grabbing the needed parameters from the intermediate state in the superclass. If needed by the superclass, subclasses might also modify state.
(Java specifics next, sorry)
public abstract class Generic {
private State state = new State();
public void a() {
preProcess();
prepareState();
doSpecificStuf(state);
clearState();
return postProcess();
}
protected void preProcess(){
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
}
protected Object postProcess(){
b.send()
return a - b;
}
protected void prepareState(){
state.prepareState(a,b);
}
private void clearState() {
state.clear();
}
protected abstract doSpecificStuf(State state);
}
public class Specific extends Generic {
protected doSpecificStuf(State state) {
state.getA().doThings();
state.setB(someCalculation);
}
}
public class Specific2 extends Generic {
protected doSpecificStuf(State state) {
state.getB().doThings();
}
}
In the same class
Another possibility would be making the preProcess() method return a State variable, and use it inthe implementations of a1() and a2().
public class MyClass {
protected State preProcess(){
a = getA;
b = getB;
b.doStuff();
return new State(a,b);
}
protected Object postProcess(){
b.send()
return a - b;
}
public void a1(){
State st = preProcess();
st.getA().doThings();
State.clear(st);
return postProcess();
}
public void a2(){
State st = preProcess();
st.getB().doThings();
State.clear(st);
return postProcess();
}
}
Well, don't repeat yourself. My golden rule (which admittedly I break from time on time) is based on the ZOI rule: all code must live exactly zero, one or infinite times. If you see code repeated, you should refactor that into a common ancestor.
That said, it is not possible to give you a definite answer how to refactor your code; there are infinite ways to do this. For example, if a1() and a2() reside in different classes then you can use polymorphism. If they live in the same class, you can create a function that receives an anonymous function as parameter and then a1() and a2() are just wrappers to that function. Using a (shudder) parameter to change the function behavior can be used, too.
You can solve this in one of 2 ways. Both a1 and a2 will call a3. a3 will do the shared code, and:
1. call a function that it receives as a parameter, which does either the middle part of a1 or the middle part of a2 (and they will pass the correct parameter),
- or -
2. receive a flag (e.g. boolean), which will tell it which part it needs to do, and using an if statement will execute the correct code.
This screams out loud for the design pattern "Template Method"
The general part is in the super class:
package patterns.templatemethod;
public abstract class AbstractSuper {
public Integer doTheStuff(Integer a, Integer b) {
Integer x = b.intValue() + a.intValue();
Integer y = doSpecificStuff(x);
return b.intValue() * y;
}
protected abstract Integer doSpecificStuff(Integer x);
}
The spezific part is in the subclass:
package patterns.templatemethod;
public class ConcreteA extends AbstractSuper {
#Override
protected Integer doSpecificStuff(Integer x) {
return x.intValue() * x.intValue();
}
}
For every spezific solution you implement a subclass, with the specific behavior.
If you put them all in an Collection, you can iterate over them and call always the common method and evry class does it's magic. ;)
hope this helps
I'm experimenting with PetaPoco to convert a table into POCOs.
In my table, I've got a column named TheEnum. The values in this column are strings that represent the following enum:
public enum MyEnum
{
Fred,
Wilma
}
PetaPoco chokes when it tries to convert the string "Fred" into a MyEnum value.
It does this in the GetConverter method, in the line:
Convert.ChangeType( src, dstType, null );
Here, src is "Fred" (a string), and dstType is typeof(MyEnum).
The exception is an InvalidCastException, saying Invalid cast from 'System.String' to 'MyEnum'
Am I missing something? Is there something I need to register first?
I've got around the problem by adding the following into the GetConverter method:
if (dstType.IsEnum && srcType == typeof(string))
{
converter = delegate( object src )
{
return Enum.Parse( dstType, (string)src ) ;
} ;
}
Obviously, I don't want to run this delegate on every row as it'll slow things down tremendously. I could register this enum and its values into a dictionary to speed things up, but it seems to me that something like this would likely already be in the product.
So, my question is, do I need to do anything special to register my enums with PetaPoco?
Update 23rd February 2012
I submitted a patch a while ago but it hasn't been pulled in yet. If you want to use it, look at the patch and merge into your own code, or get just the code from here.
I'm using 4.0.3 and PetaPoco automatically converts enums to integers and back. However, I wanted to convert my enums to strings and back. Taking advantage of Steve Dunn's EnumMapper and PetaPoco's IMapper, I came up with this. Thanks guys.
Note that it does not handle Nullable<TEnum> or null values in the DB. To use it, set PetaPoco.Database.Mapper = new MyMapper();
class MyMapper : PetaPoco.IMapper
{
static EnumMapper enumMapper = new EnumMapper();
public void GetTableInfo(Type t, PetaPoco.TableInfo ti)
{
// pass-through implementation
}
public bool MapPropertyToColumn(System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi, ref string columnName, ref bool resultColumn)
{
// pass-through implementation
return true;
}
public Func<object, object> GetFromDbConverter(System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi, Type SourceType)
{
if (pi.PropertyType.IsEnum)
{
return dbObj =>
{
string dbString = dbObj.ToString();
return enumMapper.EnumFromString(pi.PropertyType, dbString);
};
}
return null;
}
public Func<object, object> GetToDbConverter(Type SourceType)
{
if (SourceType.IsEnum)
{
return enumVal =>
{
string enumString = enumMapper.StringFromEnum(enumVal);
return enumString;
};
}
return null;
}
}
You're right, handling enums is not built into PetaPoco and usually I just suggest doing exactly what you've done.
Note that this won't slow things down for requests that don't use the enum type. PetaPoco generates code to map responses to pocos so the delegate will only be called when really needed. In other words, the GetConverter will only be called the first time a particular poco type is used, and the delegate will only be called when an enum needs conversion. Not sure on the speed of Enum.Parse, but yes you could cache in a dictionary if it's too slow.
If you are using PetaPoco's T4 generation and you want enums in your generated type, you can use the PropertyType override in Database.tt:
tables["App"]["Type"].PropertyType = "Full.Namespace.To.AppType";
I you want to store the value of the enum instead of the index number (1,2,4 for example) you can locate the update function in PetaPoco class because the code is "managed" etc, when you add it as nuget package it will store the .cs file to your project. If we would have the enum variable Color = {red, yellow, blue}
Instead of:
// Store the parameter in the command
AddParam(cmd, pc.GetValue(poco), pc.PropertyInfo);
change to:
//enum?
if (i.Value.PropertyInfo.PropertyType.IsEnum)
{
AddParam(cmd, i.Value.GetValue(poco).ToString(), i.Value.PropertyInfo);
}
else
{
// Store the parameter in the command
AddParam(cmd, i.Value.GetValue(poco), i.Value.PropertyInfo);
}
It would store "yellow" instead of 2
I am trying to translate a poker game to a correct OOP model.
The basics :
class Hand
{
Card cards[];
}
class Game
{
Hand hands[];
}
I get games and hands from a text file. I parse the text file several times, for several reasons:
get somes infos (reason 1)
compute some stats (reason 2)
...
For reason 1 I need some attributes (a1, b1) in class Hand. For reason 2, I need some other attributes (a2, b2). I think the dirty way would be :
class Hand
{
Card cards[];
Int a1,b1;
Int a2,b2;
}
I would mean that some attributes are useless most of the time.
So, to be cleaner, we could do:
class Hand
{
Card cards[];
}
class HandForReason1 extends Hand
{
Int a1,b1;
}
But I feel like using a hammer...
My question is : is there an intermediate way ? Or the hammer solution is the good one ? (in that case, what would be a correct semantic ?)
PS : design patterns welcome :-)
PS2 : strategy pattern is the hammer, isn't it?
* EDIT *
Here is an application :
// Parse the file, read game infos (reason 1)
// Hand.a2 is not needed here !
class Parser_Infos
{
Game game;
function Parse()
{
game.hands[0].a1 = ...
}
}
// Later, parse the file and get some statistics (reason 2)
// Hand.a1 is not needed here !
class Parser_Stats
{
Game game;
function Parse()
{
game.hand[0].a2 = ...
}
}
Using a chain of responsibility to recognize a poker hand is what I would do. Since each hand has it's own characteristics, you can't just have a generic hand.
Something like
abstract class Hand {
protected Hand next;
abstract protected boolean recognizeImpl(Card cards[]);
public Hand setNext(Hand next) {
this.next = next;
return next;
}
public boolean Hand recognize(Card cards[]) {
boolean result = ;
if (recognizeImpl(cards)) {
return this;
} else if (next != null) {
return next.recognize(cards);
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
And then have your implementation
class FullHouse extends Hand {
protected boolean recognizeImpl(Card cards[]) {
//...
}
}
class Triplet extends Hand {
protected boolean recognizeImpl(Card cards[]) {
//...
}
}
Then build your chain
// chain start with "best" hand first, we want the best hand
// to be treated first, least hand last
Hand handChain = new FullHouse();
handChain
.setNext(new Triplet())
//.setNext(...) /* chain method */
;
//...
Hand bestHand = handChain.recognize(cards);
if (bestHand != null) {
// The given cards correspond best to bestHand
}
Also, with each hand it's own class, you can initialize and have then hold and compute very specific things. But since you should manipulate Hand classes as much as you can (to stay as much OO as possible), you should avoid having to cast your hands to a specific hand class.
** UPDATE **
Alright, so to answer your original question (sig) the class Hand is for manipulating and treating "hands". If you need to calculate other statistics or other needs, wrapping your Hand class might not be a good idea as you'll end up with a compound class, which is not desirable (for maintainability's sake and OOP paradigm).
For the reason 1, it is alright to have different kinds of hands, as the chain of responsibility illustrate; you can read your file, create different kinds of hands with the many parameters as is required.
For reason 2, you might look at other solutions. One would be to have your Hand classes fire events (ex: when it is recognized) and your application could register those hands into some other class to listen for events. That other class should also be responsible to collect the necessary data from the files you are reading. Since a hand is not (or should not be) responsible to collect statistical data, the bottom line is that you need to have something else handle that.
One package = coherent API and functionalities
One class = coherent functionalities (a hand is a hand, not a statistical container)
One method = a (single) functionality (if a method needs to handle more than one functionality, break those functionalities into separate private methods, and call them from the public method)
I'm giving you a generic answer here because reason 1 and reason 2 are not specific.