I need an object that makes instances of other objects. I want the ability to pass in the class of the objects being created, but they all need to have the same type, and it would be great if they could all start out with the same values:
class Cloner{
BaseType prototype;
BaseType getAnother(){
BaseType newthing = prototype.clone(); //but there's no clone() in Dart
newthing.callsomeBaseTypeMethod();
return newthing;
}
}
So, prototype could be set to any object that is of type BaseClass, even if it's something whose class is a subclass of BaseClass. I'm sure there's a way to do this with the mirrors library, but I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing some obvious built-in factory way to do it.
I could see how this could be set up with a generic: Cloner<T>, but then there's no way that we can make sure T is a subtype of BaseType at compile-time, right?
To get you started, you can create a small "constructor" function that returns new instances. Try this:
typedef BaseType Builder();
class Cloner {
Builder builder;
Cloner(Builder builder);
BaseType getAnother() {
BaseType newthing = builder();
newthing.callsomeBaseTypeMethod();
return newthing;
}
}
main() {
var cloner = new Cloner(() => new BaseType());
var thing = cloner.getAnother();
}
In the above code, we create a typedef to define a function that returns a BaseType.
Related
I come from C# background and trying to do the thing that would work there, but for some reason does not work with flow js.
I have interface and a class that implements interface:
interface Id {
id: number
}
class A implements Id {
id: number
}
When I try to use object of a class in place of interface this way, everything works:
var a = new A()
function f(v: Id) {}
f(a)
But when I try to use array of objects, it gives me an error:
var array: Array<A> = [ new A(), new A() ]
function f(array: Array<Id>){}
f(array)
Error is:
'Id (This type is incompatible with A)'
Why is that?
I'm implementing network controller that sends requests to the server with integer command type id and binary serialized block of other command data. Prototype of all commands looks like:
class NetCommand {
public static var typeId; // type must be set in successors!
function new() {
}
public function typeGet():Int {
return Reflect.field(Type.getClass(this), "typeId");
}
}
All this mess in typeGet() function done just for access to the static variables with type ids of all successors. I can't simply write
return typeId;
because statics are not inheritable and this method will return 0 as a value of prototype's variable. Is there any neat solution? Is my solution cross-platform?
Update:
All command classes must be registered in controller class like this:
public function bindResponse(aClass:Class<NetCommand>) {
var typeId = Reflect.field(aClass, "typeId");
mBindResponse.set(typeId, aClass);
}
and then when new command arrives its data passes to the method that find necessary class by command id, creates instance of desired class and passes other data to it:
function onResponse(aTypeId:Int, aData:Dynamic) {
var cmdClass:Class<NetCommand> = mBindResponse.get(aTypeId);
var command:NetCommand = Type.createInstance(cmdClass, []);
command.response(aData); // this must be overriden in successor classes
}
Method typeGet() is used only for targeting outgoing instances and error handling with default behaviour of error command class without creating a heap of classes that differs only by typeId constant. So this method suppreses implementation of the real command id and may be overriden for example.
Why don't you simply make typeId an instance member (not static) ?
I am using AutoMoqCustomization in my test conventions.
Consider the code below. Everything works great until I add a constructor to one of the concrete classes. When I do, I get "could not find a parameterless constructor". We know AutoFixture doesn't have an issue with the constructor because it delivered me the test object one which proved to be assignable from IThings... no failure there. So it must be moq.
This makes some sense because I assume builder was generated by moq and passed into the GetCommands method. So I think I can see that control has been passed from AutoFixture to moq at that point.
That takes care of the why, but what should I do about it? Is there a way to instruct moq on how to deal with the ThingOne or is there a way to instruct AutoFixture to ignore moq for IThingBuilders and instead do something Fixtury?
public class TestClass
{
public interface IThingBuilders
{
T1 Build<T1>() where T1 : IThings;
}
public interface IThings
{
}
public class ThingOne : IThings
{
public ThingOne(string someparam)
{
}
}
public class ThingTwo : IThings
{
}
public class SomeClass
{
public List<IThings> GetCommands(IThingBuilders builder)
{
var newlist = new List<IThings>();
newlist.Add(builder.Build<ThingOne>());
newlist.Add(builder.Build<ThingTwo>());
return newlist;
}
}
[Theory, BasicConventions]
public void WhyCannotInstantiateProxyOfClass(ThingOne one, ThingTwo two, IThingBuilders builder, SomeClass sut)
{
Assert.IsAssignableFrom<IThings>(one);
Assert.IsAssignableFrom<IThings>(two);
var actual = sut.GetCommands(builder);
Assert.Equal(1, actual.OfType<ThingOne>().Count());
Assert.Equal(1, actual.OfType<ThingTwo>().Count());
}
}
As there's no extensibility point in Moq that enables AutoFixture to hook in and supply a value of ThingOne, there's not a whole lot you can do.
However, you can use the SetReturnsDefault<T> method of Moq. Modifying the above test would then be like this:
[Theory, BasicConventions]
public void WhyCannotInstantiateProxyOfClass(
ThingOne one, ThingTwo two, IThingBuilders builder, SomeClass sut)
{
Assert.IsAssignableFrom<IThings>(one);
Assert.IsAssignableFrom<IThings>(two);
Mock.Get(builder).SetReturnsDefault(one); // Add this to make the test pass
var actual = sut.GetCommands(builder);
Assert.Equal(1, actual.OfType<ThingOne>().Count());
Assert.Equal(1, actual.OfType<ThingTwo>().Count());
}
This is a bit easier than having to write a specific Setup/Returns pair, but not much. You could move that code to an AutoFixture Customization, but again, since this is a generic method on a a Mock instance, you'll explicitly need to call this for e.g. ThingOne in order to set the default for that return type. Not particularly flexible.
I bumped into an additional question that I needed in regards to this: Using an IEnumerable<T> as a delegate return type
From the above solution, the following was suggested:
class Example
{
//the delegate declaration
public delegate IEnumerable<T> GetGridDataSource<T>();
//the generic method used to call the method
public void someMethod<T>(GetGridDataSource<T> method)
{
method();
}
//a method to pass to "someMethod<T>"
private IEnumerable<string> methodBeingCalled()
{
return Enumerable.Empty<string>();
}
//our main program look
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//create a new instance of our example
var myObject = new Example();
//invoke the method passing the method
myObject.someMethod<string>(myObject.methodBeingCalled);
}
}
Notice that in someMethod, the delegate "method()" is called. Is there anyway to set a class-level delegate that is called later on?
I.e:
class Example {
//the delegate declaration
public delegate IEnumerable<T> GetGridDataSource<T>();
//this fails because T is never provided
private GetGridDataSource<T> getDS;
//the generic method used to call the method
public void someMethod<T>(GetGridDataSource<T> method)
{
getDS = method;
}
public void anotherMethod() {
getDS();
}
}
Depending on what you are trying to achieve and where you have flexibility in your design, there are a number of options. I've tried to cover the ones that I feel most probably relate to what you want to do.
Multiple values of T in a single instance of a non-generic class
This is basically what you seem to want. However, because of the generic nature of the method call, you'll need a class level variable that can support any possible value of T, and you will need to know T when you store a value for the delegate.
Therefore, you can either use a Dictionary<Type, object> or you could use a nested type that encapsulates the class-level variable and the method, and then use a List<WrapperType<T>> instead.
You would then need to look up the appropriate delegate based on the required type.
class Example {
//the delegate declaration
public delegate IEnumerable<T> GetGridDataSource<T>();
//this works because T is provided
private Dictionary<Type, object> getDSMap;
//the generic method used to call the method
public void someMethod<T>(GetGridDataSource<T> method)
{
getDSMap[typeof(T)] = method;
}
//note, this call needs to know the type of T
public void anotherMethod<T>() {
object getDSObj = null;
if (this.getDSMap.TryGetValue(typeof(T), out getDSObj))
{
GetGridDataSource<T> getDS = getDSObj as GetGridDataSource<T>;
if (getDS != null)
getDS();
}
}
Single value of T in a single instance of a non-generic class
In this case, you could store the delegate instance in a non-typed delegate and then cast it to the appropriate type when you need it and you know the value of T. Of course, you'd need to know T when you first create the delegate, which negates the need for a generic method or delegate in the first place.
Multiple values of T in multiple instances of a generic class
Here you can make your parent class generic and supply T up front. This then makes the example you have work correctly as the type of T is known from the start.
class Example<T> {
//the delegate declaration
public delegate IEnumerable<T> GetGridDataSource<T>();
//this works because T is provided
private GetGridDataSource<T> getDS;
//the generic method used to call the method
public void someMethod<T>(GetGridDataSource<T> method)
{
getDS = method;
}
public void anotherMethod() {
if (getDS != null)
getDS();
}
}
You either need to make the type generic as well, or use plain Delegate and cast back to the right type when you need to invoke it. You can't just use T outside a generic context - the compiler will think you're trying to refer to a normal type called T.
To put it another way - if you're going to try to use the same type T in two different places, you're going to need to know what T is somewhere in the type... and if the type isn't generic, where is that information going to live?
I am modifiying a class method which formats some input paramater dates which are subsequently used as params in a method call into the base class (which lives in another assembly).
I want to verify that the dates i pass in to my method are in the correct format when they are passed to the base class method so i would like to Moq the base class method call. Is this possible with Moq?
As of 2013 with latest Moq you can. Here is an example
public class ViewModelBase
{
public virtual bool IsValid(DateTime date)
{
//some complex shared stuff here
}
}
public class MyViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
public void Save(DateTime date)
{
if (IsValid(date))
{
//do something here
}
}
}
public void MyTest()
{
//arrange
var mockMyViewModel = new Mock<MyViewModel>(){CallBase = true};
mockMyViewModel.Setup(x => x.IsValid(It.IsAny<DateTime>())).Returns(true);
//act
mockMyViewModel.Object.Save();
//assert
//do your assertions here
}
If I understand your question correctly, you have a class A defined in some other assembly, and then an class B implemented more or less like this:
public class B : A
{
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
base.MyMethod(input);
}
}
And now you want to verify that base.MyMethod is called?
I don't see how you can do this with a dynamic mock library. All dynamic mock libraries (with the exception of TypeMock) work by dynamically emitting classes that derive from the type in question.
In your case, you can't very well ask Moq to derive from A, since you want to test B.
This means that you must ask Moq to give you a Mock<B>. However, this means that the emitted type derives from B, and while it can override MyMethod (which is still virtual) and call its base (B.MyMethod), it has no way of getting to the original class and verify that B calls base.MyMethod.
Imagine that you have to write a class (C) that derives from B. While you can override MyMethod, there's no way you can verify that B calls A:
public class C : B
{
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// How to verify that base calls its base?
// base in this context means B, not A
}
}
Again with the possible exception of TypeMock, dynamic mock libraries cannot do anything that you cannot do manually.
However, I would assume that calling the base method you are trying to verify has some observable side effect, so if possible, can you use state-based testing instead of behaviour-based testing to verify the outcome of calling the method?
In any case, state-based testing ought to be your default approach in most cases.
Agree with Mark, it's not possible using Moq.
Depending on your situation you may consider swithcing from inheritance to composition. Then you'll be able to mock the dependency and verify your method. Of course in some cases it just might not worth it.
wrap the base class method in a method and setup that method
e.g.
public class B : A
{
public virtual BaseMyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
base.MyMethod(input);
}
public override MyMethod(object input)
{
// Do something
BaseMyMethod(input);
}
}
and now Setup the BaseMyMethod
It is quite possible mocking base class. But you will have to modify target class.
For ex. DerivedClass extends BaseClass.
BaseClass has methods MethodA(), MethodB(), MethodC()...
The DerivedClass has this method:
void MyMethod() {
this.MethodA();
this.MethodB();
this.MethodC();
}
You want to mock base class in order to validate that all MethodA(), MethodB(), MethodC() are being called inside MyMethod().
You have to create a field in the DerivedClass:
class DerivedClass {
private BaseClass self = this;
...
}
And also You have to modify the MyMethod():
void MyMethod() {
self.MethodA();
self.MethodB();
self.MethodC();
}
Also add a method, which can inject the this.self field with Mock object
public void setMock(BaseClass mock) {
this.self = mock;
}
Now you can mock:
DerivedClass target = new DerivedClass ();
BaseClass mock = new Mock(typeof(BaseClass));
target.setMock(mock);
target.MyMethod();
mock.verify(MethodA);
mock.verify(MethodB);
mock.verify(MethodC);
Using this technic, you can also mock nested method calls.
I found this solution - ugly but it could work.
var real = new SubCoreClass();
var mock = new Mock<SubCoreClass>();
mock.CallBase = true;
var obj = mock.Object;
mock
.Setup(c => c.Execute())
.Callback(() =>
{
obj.CallBaseMember(typeof(Action), real, "Execute");
Console.WriteLine(obj.GetHashCode());
}
);
public static Delegate CreateBaseCallDelegate(object injectedInstance, Type templateDelegate, object instanceOfBase, string methodName)
{
var deleg = Delegate.CreateDelegate(templateDelegate, instanceOfBase, methodName);
deleg.GetType().BaseType.BaseType.GetField("_target", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic).SetValue(deleg, injectedInstance);
return deleg;
}
public static object CallBaseMember(this object injectedInstance, Type templateDelegate, object instanceOfBase, string methodName, params object[] arguments)
{
return CreateBaseCallDelegate(injectedInstance, templateDelegate, instanceOfBase, methodName).DynamicInvoke(arguments);
}