Typescript reflection - required parameters & default values - reflection

In short: is there a way to know if a typescript parameter is required and/or has a default value?
Longer version:
Say I have the following file:
//Foo.ts
class Bar {
foo(required:string,defaultValue:number=0,optional?:boolean) {
...
}
}
I would like to know of each of the parameters:
the name
the type
is it required?
does it have a default value?
I have succesfully used method decorators with the TypeScript reflection API to get the types of the parameters, I've used this method to get their names, but so far I have not found a way to know if a variable is required and/or has a default value.
I know the typescript compiler itself can be used from within typescript. So I'm wondering if there is a way to use the parse tree of the compiler to see if a parameter is required and/or has a default value?
How would that work?

If you want to do this from scratch...
On a high level, one way of doing it is to:
Figure out how to get the SourceFile node using the compiler api of your file. That requires a bit of an explanation in itself.
From there, use the api's forEachChild function to loop over all the nodes in the file and find the node with a kind of SyntaxKind.ClassDeclaration and .name property with text Bar.
Then loop over all the children of the class by again using the api's forEachChild function and get the ones that has the kind SyntaxKind.MethodDeclaration and .name property with text foo.
To get the parameters, you will need to loop over the method node's parameters property.
Then for each parameter node, to get the name you can call .getText() on the .name property.
You can tell if the parameter is optional by doing:
const parameterDeclaration = parameterNode as ts.ParameterDeclaration;
const isOptional = parameterDeclaration.questionToken != null || parameterDeclaration.initializer != null || parameterDeclaration.dotDotDotToken != null;
Or you could use the TypeChecker's isOptionalParameter method.
To get its default expression, you will just have to check the initializer property:
propertyDeclaration.initializer;
To get the type use the TypeChecker's getTypeOfSymbolAtLocation method and pass in the symbol of the node... that gets a little bit complicated so I won't bother explaining it (think about how it's different with union types and such).
Don't do it from scratch...
I've created a wrapper around the TypeScript compiler api. Just use this code with ts-simple-ast (edit: Previously this talked about my old ts-type-info library, but ts-simple-ast is much better):
import { Project } from "ts-morph";
// read more about setup here:
// https://ts-morph.com/setup/adding-source-files
const project = new Project({ tsConfigFilePath: "tsconfig.json" });
const sourceFile = project.getSourceFileOrThrow("src/Foo.ts");
const method = sourceFile.getClassOrThrow("Bar").getInstanceMethodOrThrow("foo");
Once you have the method, it's very straightforward to get all the information you need from its parameters:
console.log(method.getName()); // foo
for (const param of method.getParameters()) {
console.log(param.getName());
console.log(param.getType().getText());
console.log(param.isOptional());
console.log(param.getInitializer() != null);
}

Related

CamelCase property names with NJsonSchema C# CodeGeneration

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");

How can advance google closure compilation be used with ES6 classes and arbitrary defineProperty?

I maintain a data flow library that allows programmers to define new properties during instantiation, then does neat things at run-time with both property reads and writes, all transparently thanks to JS defineProperty. Sample usage, where TagSession is defined with the ES6 class keyword:
const sithApp = new TagSession( null, 'SithTrakSession',
{
obiTrakker: cF( c => new WebSocket('ws://localhost:4000')
.onmessage = msg => c.md.obiLoc = JSON.parse(msg.data)),
obiLoc: cI( null),
sithIds: cI([-1,-2,3616,-3,-4])
});
I can now write code where the map keywords are transparent accessors:
function SithTrak () {
return div({class: "app-container"},
h1({
class: "css-planet-monitor",
content: cF(c => "Obi-Wan currently on " +
(sithApp.obiLoc ?
sithApp.obiLoc.name : "...dunno"))
}))
}
This works great uncompiled and with Google Closure SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATION, but ADVANCED_COMPILATION warns (and the output fails) about, eg:
WARNING - Property obiLoc never defined on TagSession
withObi: cF( c=> c.md.info && sithApp.obiLoc
I have looked at all the annotations that might apply, but nothing seems suited to such a dynamic capability.
Am I missing something obvious, or is this combo of dynamism and optimization asking too much?
Dynamic properties added with this method would require using a bracket access for ADVANCED mode: sithApp['obiLoc']. In ADVANCED mode, the compiler must know about all properties accessed via the dot nation at compile time.
Since it isn't known that these properties are defined on the class you are going to get type warnings, bit it shouldn't break your code.
You can add declarations to silence the type warnings:
/** #type {?} */
TagSession.prototype.objLoc;
In other cases, you might be able to use #lends but I don't think this will work here as the types provided might not match the expected type of the property value. But there isn't enough context to be sure:
/** #lends {TagSession.prototype} */ ({
obiTrakker: ...,
obiLoc: ...,
sithIds: ...
})

Kotlin Reflection - Check if property has type

I want to iterate over all fields in one of my classes, filter for annotated ones and then check if the field has one specific type.
All I found was field.returnType.isSubtype(other: KType) but I don't know how to get the KType of my other class.
Here is my code so far:
target.declaredMemberProperties.forEach {
if (it.findAnnotation<FromOwner>() != null) {
if ( /* it.returnType is Component <- Here I need some working check */ ) {
// do stuff
} else {
// do ther stuff
}
}
}
There are at least two solutions here:
Get the KClass<*> of it.returnType using .jvmErasure, then check the subtype relationship for the KClasses:
it.returnType.jvmErasure.isSubclassOf(Component::class)
Since Kotlin 1.1, you can construct the KType from the KClass token using .createType() (check its optional parameters: you can use them to provide nullability info, type arguments and annotations), and then check the subtype as you suggested:
it.returnType.isSubtypeOf(Component::class.createType())
Creating the type on every iteration may introduce performance issues, make sure you cache it if you need it often.

using export in alloy controller versus attaching functions directly to the '$' scope

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 :) ).

How to set an empty Object's properties programatically?

I'm doing some Actionscript work right now and I'd like to know whether there's a way to initiate an empty object's value programatically like this:
var myObj:Object = new Object;
myObj.add("aKey","aValue");
To add a property called aKey whose value is aValue
I need to create a "Dumb" (data-only) object to use as a parameter to send via POST. So I don't know offhand how long and/or how many attributes it's gonna have.
Or something like that.
Thanks
ActionScript 3 allows you to create new Objects using an expressive Object Literal syntax similar to the one found in JavaScript:
const myObj : Object = {
aKey: "aValue",
};
trace(myObj.aKey); // "aValue"
If you want to assign properties after the object has been constructed then you can use either dot notation or square bracket notation, eg:
const myObj : Object = {}; // create an empty object.
myObj.aKey = "aValue";
myObj["anotherKey"] = "anotherValue";
If you plan on sending the data over HTTP, you may wish to consider looking at the URLVariables class which will take care of URL encoding the data for you.

Resources