I have this spy in a test:
$subject->expects( $this->once() )->method( 'send_json_success' )->with( $expected );
$expected is an array and one of the items of this array should be set to 0.
Instead is currently set to an empty string, which is the source of the problem I'm fixing.
I want to make sure the test fails when the item is set to an empty string, but I can't find how to tell PHPUnit to strictly check the array is exactly the same as $expected.
I can't use $this->same() because the method does not return anything: I need to test the method is called with the right arguments, instead.
As explained in the API documentation of the with() method, you can use a PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint object.
A PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsIdentical object is used to implement the TestCase::assetSame() method.
So, it should be:
<?php
use PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsIdentical;
// Test case class...
$subject->expects($this->once())
->method('send_json_success')
->with(new PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsIdentical($expected));
Related
I am getting "Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable" for this line of code:
$parent = $path[count($path)-1];
How would I rewrite it so it works?
This is because your $path variable is not an array type data structure or other iterable structure.
Without context, it is impossible to understand how you should rewrite this code.
You shouldn't run this piece of code without checking that the $path variable is not an array. This can be done by calling the is_array() function.
I also noticed that you are trying to get the last element of the array via count($path)-1. It is better to do this through the end() function, but you should pay attention to the fact that this function shifts the array pointer.
Can you please explain me the following behavior?
public function kill($id)
{
$post = Post::withTrashed()->where('id',$id)->get();
$post->forceDelete();
return redirect()->back()->with('success','Post Deleted Succesfully');
}
The code results in this error:
forceDelete method doesnt exist
But the following code does not.
public function kill($id)
{
$post = Post::withTrashed()->where('id',$id)->first();
$post->forceDelete();
return redirect()->back()->with('success','Post Deleted Succesfully');
}
Could someone explain?
My Laravel knowledge is rusty and I am a Rails guy. I just landed on your post to review it if it needs any improvements.
Any ways... if I am correct...
You have 2 functions, let them be F1 and F2 respectively.
In F1, you are searching for a post with a specific ID. What you get is a collection proxy and not a Post. Thus it doesn't respond to forceDelete().
In F2, you are asking for the first object in the collection thus you are getting a Post object that responds to forceDelete().
To delete a collection you will be able to use the delete() function instead in some thing like
Post::withTrashed()->where('id',$id)->delete();
Actually it is pretty simple. As you indicated in the post,
$post = Post::withTrashed()->where('id',$id)->get();
$post->forceDelete();
gives error
while
$post = Post::withTrashed()->where('id',$id)->first();
$post->forceDelete();
doesnot. The reason as for my understanding is, $id is always unique. And it returns a single data (or single model) related to that particular id from the post table. In the first case where you are using get() method, what you are trying to return is a multiple row data, hence it will return a single data but in multi-dimensional array format. You can check that using dd() helper function.
In second case, you are using first() method, it always returns single row of data related to that particular $id, so forceDelete() method exists for that case(In other sense you can say that forceDelete exists only the single row data model, but not multiple data row model which you are tying to retrieve using get(). Remember get() always tries to return multiple data, and multiple data can only be held on array, so it gives array as a result although the result is only one.)
Hope this helps.
This is because when you user ->get() what you really have is a Laravel collection and there is no forceDelete() method on collection.
So you have to use ->first() or ->find() and eloquent will return the model and then you can use forceDelete on it.
For example:
$users->each(function ($user) {
$user->forcedelete();
});
Is is efficient way of doing this is another question. But it works.
I am having issue in assigning the return type of below method to a variable of integer type in advanced compilation mode of google closure. Also i don't want to use getter/setter method as a replacement for below code.
/**
* Sets the idNum of this shape.
* #override
* #param {...number} id The number to set idNum, optional parameter.
* #returns {number} Returns idNum if nothing is passed in.
*/
app.Shape.prototype.idNum = function(id) {
if(goog.isDef(id)) {
this._idNum = id;
} else {
return this._idNum;
}
};
How should i update my annotation for
#returns
so that above method may or may not return number depending on the parameter passed.
It's a little strange to have the same function be both a getter and a setter, depending on how it's called. But anyway: Use an = for the optional parameter: {number=}. For your "optional return" you can write the return type as {number|undefined} because if you don't hit a 'return' statement, the function will just return undefined. See Annotating JavaScript for the Closure Compiler for more.
The Closure Compiler doesn't support having more than one signature for a function, you basically want:
/** #type {(function(number):undefined)|(function():number)} */
Currently, the compiler merges this into "Function". More specifically, you want to say not that it is either of those types but both of those types and there is nothing like that now.
While you can manually merge the function signature to be:
/**
* #param {number=} opt_id
* #return {number|undefined}
*/
This means the return type is always "number|undefined" not the return type is "undefined" when the parameter is specified and "number" otherwise when leaves consumers having to "narrow" the results to either "number" or "undefined" after every call which is an awkward api.
While having a function be both a getter and a setter is not strange in many scenarios, you are fighting against what Closure Compiler is trying to do for you.
JavaScript is loosely-typed, meaning anything can be "this type OR that type OR another type OR ...." with no limit on the size of this list.
CC is trying to help by enforcing strong-types. The strongest possible typing insists that a given variable is "this one type only", but this rigidity is often a pain (not allowing a NULL or UNDEFINED value in particular). CC relaxes this by allowing "a few types only" that you must spell out. However, you should be aware that this relaxation is one small step backwards, towards the wild west of loose-typing.
If you are using CC to improve your code, then listen to what it is trying to tell you. If you find yourself fighting to find the right annotation for something, or your lists of types are growing, then maybe you need to reconsider your use of CC and strong-typing in the first place.
Personally, I prefer strong-typing and simpler, shorter, clearer code. In your example, CC is trying to help by obliquely hinting at the down-side of combining getter and setter functionality.
Can someone tell me the exact difference between node() and element() types in XQuery? The documentation states that element() is an element node, while node() is any node, so if I understand it correctly element() is a subset of node().
The thing is I have an XQuery function like this:
declare function local:myFunction($arg1 as element()) as element() {
let $value := data($arg1/subelement)
etc...
};
Now I want to call the function with a parameter which is obtained by another function, say functionX (which I have no control over):
let $parameter := someNamespace:functionX()
return local:myFunction($parameter)
The problem is, functionX returns an node() so it will not let me pass the $parameter directly. I tried changing the type of my function to take a node() instead of an element(), but then I can’t seem to read any data from it. $value is just empty.
Is there some way of either converting the node to an element or should am I just missing something?
EDIT: As far as I can tell the problem is in the part where I try to get the subelement using $arg1/subelement. Apparently you can do this if $arg1 is an element() but not if it is a node().
UPDATE: I have tested the example provided by Dimitre below, and it indeed works fine, both with Saxon and with eXist DB (which is what I am using as the XQuery engine). The problem actually occurs with the request:get-data() function from eXist DB. This function gets data provided by the POST request when using eXist through REST, parses it as XML and returns it as a node(). But for some reason when I pass the data to another function XQuery doesn’t acknowledge it as being a valid element(), even though it is. If I extract it manually (i.e. copy the output and paste it to my source code), assign it to a variable and pass it to my function all goes well. But if I pass it directly it gives me a runtime error (and indeed fails the instance of test).
I need to be able to either make it ignore this type-check or “typecast” the data to an element().
data() returning empty for an element just because the argument type is node() sounds like a bug to me. What XQuery processor are you using?
It sounds like you need to placate static type checking, which you can do using a treat as expression. I don't believe a dynamic test using instance of will suffice.
Try this:
let $parameter := someNamespace:functionX() treat as element()
return local:myFunction($parameter)
Quoting from the 4th edition of Michael Kay's magnum opus, "The treat as operator is essentially telling the system that you know what the runtime type is going to be, and you want any checking to be deferred until runtime, because you're confident that your code is correct." (p. 679)
UPDATE: I think the above is actually wrong, since treat as is just an assertion. It doesn't change the type annotation node(), which means it's also a wrong assertion and doesn't help you. Hmmm... What I really want is cast as, but that only works for atomic types. I guess I'm stumped. Maybe you should change XQuery engines. :-) I'll report back if I think of something else. Also, I'm curious to find out if Dimitre's solution works for you.
UPDATE #2: I had backpedaled here earlier. Can I backpedal again? ;-) Now my theory is that treat as will work based on the fact that node() is interpreted as a union of the various specific node type annotations, and not as a run-time type annotation itself (see the "Note" in the "Item types" section of the XQuery formal semantics.) At run time, the type annotation will be element(). Use treat as to guarantee to the type checker that this will be true. Now I wait on bated breath: does it work for you?
EXPLANATORY ADDENDUM: Assuming this works, here's why. node() is a union type. Actual items at run time are never annotated with node(). "An item type is either an atomic type, an element type, an attribute type, a document node type, a text node type, a comment node type, or a processing instruction type."1 Notice that node() is not in that list. Thus, your XQuery engine isn't complaining that an item has type node(); rather it's complaining that it doesn't know what the type is going to be (node() means it could end up being attribute(), element(), text(), comment(), processing-instruction(), or document-node()). Why does it have to know? Because you're telling it elsewhere that it's an element (in your function's signature). It's not enough to narrow it down to one of the above six possibilities. Static type checking means that you have to guarantee—at compile time—that the types will match up (element with element, in this case). treat as is used to narrow down the static type from a general type (node()) to a more specific type (element()). It doesn't change the dynamic type. cast as, on the other hand, is used to convert an item from one type to another, changing both the static and dynamic types (e.g., xs:string to xs:boolean). It makes sense that cast as can only be used with atomic values (and not nodes), because what would it mean to convert an attribute to an element (etc.)? And there's no such thing as converting a node() item to an element() item, because there's no such thing as a node() item. node() only exists as a static union type. Moral of the story? Avoid XQuery processors that use static type checking. (Sorry for the snarky conclusion; I feel I've earned the right. :-) )
NEW ANSWER BASED ON UPDATED INFORMATION: It sounds like static type checking is a red herring (a big fat one). I believe you are in fact not dealing with an element but a document node, which is the invisible root node that contains the top-level element (document element) in the XPath data model representation of a well-formed XML document.
The tree is thus modeled like this:
[document-node]
|
<docElement>
|
<subelement>
and not like this:
<docElement>
|
<subelement>
I had assumed you were passing the <docElement> node. But if I'm right, you were actually passing the document node (its parent). Since the document node is invisible, its serialization (what you copied and pasted) is indistinguishable from an element node, and the distinction was lost when you pasted what is now interpreted as a bare element constructor in your XQuery. (To construct a document node in XQuery, you have to wrap the element constructor with document{ ... }.)
The instance of test fails because the node is not an element but a document-node. (It's not a node() per se, because there's no such thing; see explanation above.)
Also, this would explain why data() returns empty when you tried to get the <subelement> child of the document node (after relaxing the function argument type to node()). The first tree representation above shows that <subelement> is not a child of the document node; thus it returns the empty sequence.
Now for the solution. Before passing the (document node) parameter, get its element child (the document element), by appending /* (or /element() which is equivalent) like this:
let $parameter := someNamespace:functionX()/*
return local:myFunction($parameter)
Alternatively, let your function take a document node and update the argument you pass to data():
declare function local:myFunction($arg1 as document-node()) as element() {
let $value := data($arg1/*/subelement)
etc...
};
Finally, it looks like the description of eXist's request:get-data() function is perfectly consistent with this explanation. It says: "If its not a binary document, we attempt to parse it as XML and return a document-node()." (emphasis added)
Thanks for the adventure. This turned out to be a common XPath gotcha (awareness of document nodes), but I learned a few things from our detour into static type checking.
This works perfectly using Saxon 9.3:
declare namespace my = "my:my";
declare namespace their = "their:their";
declare function my:fun($arg1 as element()) as element()
{
$arg1/a
};
declare function their:fun2($arg1 as node()) as node()
{
$arg1
};
my:fun(their:fun2(/*) )
when the code above is applied on the following XML document:
<t>
<a/>
</t>
the correct result is produced with no error messages:
<a/>
Update:
The following should work even with the most punctuential static type-checking XQuery implementation:
declare namespace my = "my:my";
declare namespace their = "their:their";
declare function my:fun($arg1 as element()) as element()
{
$arg1/a
};
declare function their:fun2($arg1 as node()) as node()
{
$arg1
};
let $vRes := their:fun2(/*)
(: this prevents our code from runtime crash :)
return if($vRes instance of element())
then
(: and this assures the static type-checker
that the type is element() :)
my:fun(their:fun2(/*) treat as element())
else()
node() is an element, attribute, processing instruction, text node, etc.
But data() converts the result to a string, which isn't any of those; it's a primitive type.
You might want to try item(), which should match either.
See 2.5.4.2 Matching an ItemType and an Item in the W3C XQuery spec.
Although it's not shown in your example code, I assume you are actually returning a value (like the $value you are working with) from the local:myFunction.
I have the following code
$pageName = "test";
$Container = {};
I like to set a property of $Container by a variable. I tried $Container.set("test", $pageName);. It didn't raise any errors, but $Container.test or $Container.get("test"); display nothing.
How do I fix it?
The problem is that set is the wrong method. You need to do a put. Remember - Velocity is calling the Java methods. There is no "set" method on a Map object.
Specifically, you can do
$Container.put("test", $pageName)
Now, one weird thing is that this will print "true" or "false" in the page, since the Map.put() method returns a boolean. So I always do
#set($dummy = $Container.put("test", $pageName))
which does the put and stores the result in another reference (which you can then ignore) instead of rendering it to the page.
Hey I ran into the same problem is the "true" or "false" printed on the page, and there is a simpler way to handle it. What I did is a little weird, and I did it Confluence, which of course uses Velocity under the covers. I mention that because I understand Velocity can be used in may different applications.
With a Confluence user macro, I check for a previously created attribute on the req variable, the request variable, i.e. "myPageVars". Then I use the put method to put a new key-value pair, based on the macro parameters. By using the $! prefix, rather than just $, the output isn't sent to the screen.
...
$!req.getAttribute("myPageVars").put( $paramKey, $paramValue )
...
I'm somewhat new to Velocity, so I can't guarantee this will work in every context, but it seems syntactically easier than the whole #set ($dummy etc. line.