Why do functions in AzureFunctions requires to use
[HttpTrigger(AuthorizationLeve.Anonymous, "get")]
Instead of
[HttpTrigger(AuthorizationLeve.Anonymous, HttpMethods.Get)]
Of course I cannot use
HttpMethods.Get.ToString()
becase language does not allow to call functions in Attributes
and creating my own
public static class HttpMethodsStrings
{
public const string Get = "get";
}
seems redundant since .NET already provides HttpMethods.
You can use System.Net.WebRequestMethods.Http.X constants instead of hard coded strings ("get", "post"). I have put together the piece of code and debugged it and it works fine.
The snippet of the same is shown below -
You can modify your second example to use the nameof operator
eg
[HttpTrigger(AuthorizationLeve.Anonymous, HttpMethods.Get)]
becomes
[HttpTrigger(AuthorizationLeve.Anonymous, nameof(HttpMethods.Get))]
Related
does anybody know a way to configure NJsonSchema to use CamelCase property naming durching code generation? I've a JSON schema with property names like message_id which lead to C# property name 'Message_id' where i.e. 'MessageId' whould be a more C#-like way.
With an attribute like '[JsonProperty("message_id"]' it would be no problem to specified the connection between the different names.
So, you asked about code generation. I was having trouble with the schema it generated not matching what was getting sent to my Angular app. So, while this isn't exactly what you were looking for, perhaps it helps you find an answer (maybe?).
To generate the schema with the camel case property names, I'm setting the Default Property Name Handling to CamelCase, but this is using the deprecated call to set these settings directly. There should be some way to use the SerializerSettings directly, but I wasn't quite able to make that work. This isn't production code for me, so it will do.
internal class SchemaFileBuilder<T>
{
public static void CreateSchemaFile()
{
CreateSchemaFile(typeof(T).Name);
}
public static void CreateSchemaFile(string fileName)
{
JsonSchemaGeneratorSettings settings = new JsonSchemaGeneratorSettings();
settings.DefaultPropertyNameHandling = PropertyNameHandling.CamelCase;
var schema = NJsonSchema.JsonSchema.FromType<T>(settings);
var json = schema.ToJson();
Directory.CreateDirectory("Schemas");
File.WriteAllText($"Schemas\\{fileName}.schema.json", json);
}
}
I set this up as a generic function so I could pass multiple schemas in to either createSchemaFile functions. Here's are some example calls which would generate a Person.schema.json file and a Persons.schema.json file:
SchemaFileBuilder<Person>.CreateSchemaFile();
SchemaFileBuilder<Dictionary<string, Person>>.CreateSchemaFile("Persons");
here is the code of an alloy controller written in two different ways. Although the both work the same, Which one might be best practice?
example 1 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
$.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
example 2 of controller.js:
var currentState = true;
exports.getState = function(){
return currentState;
}
Titanium is based on the CommonJS framework. The exports variable is a special variable used typically to expose a public API in a class object. So when you want to expose a method of doSomething() on the MyModule.js class you would use the exports variable like this:
exports.doSomething() = function(args) {
//Some really cool method here
};
Then reference that class using
var myModule = require('MyModule');
myModule.doSomething();
However when referencing a view object the typical way to reference the is using the $. shortcut. You can see they prefer that method in the official documentation.
http://docs.appcelerator.com/platform/latest/#!/guide/Alloy_XML_Markup
The $ variable holds a reference to your controller instance. It also contains some references to all indexed views (understand, views for which you supplied an index in you xml markup).
Both ways are strictly equivalent as, during the compilation, Alloy will merge the content of the exports with your controller referenced in $. Adding them directly to the instance won't change a thing.
Neverthless, developers are used to see the public API as the set of functions exported via the special variable exports; Thus, I will recommend to keep using it in a clean and clear way (for instance, defining your functions in your module scope, and only expose them at the end or beginning of your controller).
function myFunction1 () { }
function myFunction2 () { }
function myFunction3 () { }
exports.myFunction1 = myFunction1;
exports.myFunction3 = myFunction3;
Thereby, your API is quite clear for people diving into your source code. (A readMe file is also highly recommended :) ).
Using FluentMigrator, the default creation of a Column using .AsString() results in an nvarchar(255). Is there a simple way (before I modify the FluentMigrator code) to create a column of type nvarchar(MAX)?
You could create an extension method to wrap .AsString(Int32.MaxValue) within .AsMaxString()
e.g.
internal static class MigratorExtensions
{
public static ICreateTableColumnOptionOrWithColumnSyntax AsMaxString(this ICreateTableColumnAsTypeSyntax createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsString(int.MaxValue);
}
}
OK, I found it. Basically, use .AsString(Int32.MaxValue). Pity there's not a .AsMaxString() method, but I guess it's easy enough to put in...
You can use AsCustom("nvarchar(max)") and pack it to extension
If you often create columns/tables with the same settings or groups of columns, you should be creating extension methods for your migrations!
For example, nearly every one of my tables has CreatedAt and UpdatedAt DateTime columns, so I whipped up a little extension method so I can say:
Create.Table("Foos").
WithColumn("a").
WithTimestamps();
I think I created the Extension method properly ... I know it works, but FluentMigrator has a LOT of interfaces ... here it is:
public static class MigrationExtensions {
public static ICreateTableWithColumnSyntax WithTimestamps(this ICreateTableWithColumnSyntax root) {
return root.
WithColumn("CreatedAt").AsDateTime().NotNullable().
WithColumn("UpdatedAt").AsDateTime().NotNullable();
}
}
Similarly, nearly every one of my tables has an int primary key called 'Id', so I think I'm going to add Table.CreateWithId("Foos") to always add that Id for me. Not sure ... I actually just started using FluentMigrator today, but you should always be refactoring when possible!
NOTE: If you do make helper/extension methods for your migrations, you should never ever ever change what those methods do. If you do, someone could try running your migrations and things could explode because the helper methods you used to create Migration #1 works differently now than they did earlier.
Here is the code for creating columns incase it helps you create helper methods: https://github.com/schambers/fluentmigrator/blob/master/src/FluentMigrator/Builders/Create/Column/CreateColumnExpressionBuilder.cs
How about extending like this:
public static class StringMaxMigratorExtensions
{
public static ICreateTableColumnOptionOrWithColumnSyntax AsStringMax(this ICreateTableColumnAsTypeSyntax createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsCustom("nvarchar(max)");
}
public static IAlterColumnOptionSyntax AsStringMax(this IAlterColumnAsTypeSyntax alterColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return alterColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsCustom("nvarchar(max)");
}
}
I am just learning actionscript, so come across the problem
In my application I often call to different web services, and because I don't want to hardcode urls to them in my code, I am passing urls to the services as flashvars.
Currently I am doing it this way:
public var siteUrl:String;
public var gameId:String;
public function main():void
{
siteUrl = Application.application.parameters.siteurl;
gameId = Application.application.parameters.gameid;
Where main is a function, which is called on application's creation complete event.
This way I can call both variables from main file of the application but I want to access them from other files. (other as classes)
So is there a way to create class with constants and init values there with flashvars so I can use them everywhere (after importing of course)
The parameters are just stored in that Application.application.parameters object, and that's static. There's no reason you couldn't access that from other classes in your code.
If you want to write a class that wraps the parameters (maybe validates them or something) you could do that fairly easily. You can use a for each loop to loop over all the parameters. Something like:
var params:Object = Application.application.parameters
for(var name:String in params) {
var value:String = params[name] as String;
/* do something with the param */
}
If you want your class to actually verify things then it could just check for each parameter it expects and store it in a local variable.
It really just depends on your own preferences. Some people are fine with accessing the parameters object when they need it. Some people like having the extra code-completion by having a config class that actually defines all the expected config variables.
Update in response to comment:
Instead of having one module declare the variable and have other modules have to depend on that one to access the property it would be cleaner to have a single config module that everything that needs it would all use.
You could use a static class or singleton or some IoC stuff. Just for simplicity I'll show you a way you can do it with a static class.
class MyConfig {
private static var _infoService:String;
private static var _someOtherParam:int;
public static function get infoService():String { return _infoService; }
public static function get someOtherParam():int { return _someOtherParam; }
public static function initParams():Void {
var params:Object = Application.application.parameters;
_infoService = params.infoservice;
// just assuming you have a method to convert here. don't remember the
// code off the top of my head
_someOtherParam = convertToInt(params.someOtherParam);
}
}
Make sure when your app initializes it calls MyConfig.initParams(). You can have that method actually validate that it gets everything it expects and throw exceptions (or return an error) if there's a failure if you want.
Then wherever you need to use that config within your code you just import your config class and access the param. So getting infoService would just be:
var infoService:String = MyConfig.infoService;
Personally I wouldn't use a static class, but it was the easiest to show.
I am using a Cairngorm MVC architecture for my current project.
I have several commands which use the same type of function that returns a value. I would like to have this function in one place, and reuse it, rather than duplicate the code in each command. What is the best way to do this?
Create a static class or static method in one of your Cairngorm classes.
class MyStatic
{
public static function myFunction(value:String):String
{
return "Returning " + value;
}
}
Then where you want to use your function:
import MyStatic;
var str:String = MyStatic.myFunction("test");
Another option is to create a top level function (a la "trace"). Check out this post I wrote here.
You have lots of options here -- publicly defined functions in your model or controller, such as:
var mySharedFunction:Function = function():void
{
trace("foo");
}
... static methods on new or existing classes, etc. Best practice probably depends on what the function needs to do, though. Can you elaborate?
Create an abstract base class for your commands and add your function in the protected scope. If you need to reuse it anywhere else, refactor it into a public static method on a utility class.