I'm trying to create an override for /classes/controller/FrontController.php.
For testing purposes, I got the original method written like this:
protected function canonicalRedirection($canonical_url = '')
{
die('Original method');
...
and the testing class /override/classes/controller/FrontController.php is written like this
class FrontController extends FrontControllerCore
{
protected function canonicalRedirection($canonical_url = '')
{
die('Overriden method');
}
}
But it always outputs Original method
Is there something i'm doing wrong?
By the way, this works on different domain, but not on the one I'd like it work, so there is probably even more complicated stuff going on.
Thanks for any kick!
In order to override FrontController you need to add new file in override/classes/FrontController.php
Shouldn't the override be in /override/classes/FrontController.php - haven't look at any version later than 1.5.0.3 though, so they may have moved things around... again.
It's confusing but the FrontController class isn't a controller; it's a base class.
EDIT: Well.... I just had a look at 1.5.0.17 and they have indeed moved it. Looks like a bug to me :(
Related
I'm using AssertJ to test web using fluentlenium and extent reports for reporting the results.
I asked before the question but forgot to mention the use of AssertJ.
The provided answer was to extend soft assert and that it has onAssertFailure function.
Is there anything like this for AssertJ soft assertions? Or is there another solution to bypass it?
In the next AssertJ version (2.5.0) you will have access to all soft assertions errors (see this commit).
Hope it helps
In a future release of assertJ a method wasSuccess() is added (as can be seen on git history), but it is not yet available in the current release.
When this method is added you can do something like this:
public class AssertjSoftAssert extends SoftAssertions {
private void checkFailure() {
if(!wasSuccess()) {
onFailure();
}
}
private void onFailure() {
//doFailureStuff
}
#Override
public BigDecimalAssert assertThat(BigDecimal actual) {
BigDecimalAssert assertion = super.assertThat(actual);
checkFailure();
return assertion;
}
#Override
public BooleanAssert assertThat(boolean actual) {
BooleanAssert assertion = super.assertThat(actual);
checkFailure();
return assertion;
}
}
Do note, however, that you will have to override EVERY assertion method in the SoftAssertions class like I've shown you with the examples here. And also if new Assertions are added to the SoftAssertions class you will have to override those as well. This is the best solution I could find right now, but won't work until assertj is updated either.
EDIT: Actually I am not sure this would even work because I am not sure wasSuccess() will return true after every successvul softassert or only after throwing assertAll() but I can't test this obviously as the feature isn't out yet.
Bonus: The commit that added wasSuccess()
I'm using a masterpage in my ASP.NET MVC project. This masterpage expects some ViewData to be present, which displays this on every page.
If I don't set this ViewData key in my controllers, I get an error that it can't find it. However, I don't want to set the ViewData in every controller (I don't want to say ViewData["foo"] = GetFoo(); in every controller).
So, I was thinking of setting this in a base controller, and have every controller inherit from this base controller. In the base controller default constructur, I set the ViewData. I found a similar approach here: http://www.asp.net/learn/MVC/tutorial-13-cs.aspx. So far so good, this works... but the problem is that this data comes from a database somewhere.
Now when I want to Unit Test my controllers, the ones that inherit from the base controller call its default constructor. In the default constructor, I initialize my repository class to get this data from the database. Result: my unit tests fail, since it can't access the data (and I certainly don't want them to access this data).
I also don't want to pass the correct Repository (or DataContext, whatever you name it) class to every controller which in turn pass it to the default controller, which I could then mock with my unit tests. The controllers in turn rely on other repository classes, and I would end up passing multiple parameters to the constructor. Too much work for my feeling, or am I wrong? Is there another solution?
I've tried using StructureMap but in the end I didn't feel like that is going to fix my problem, since every controller will still have to call the base constructor which will initialize the repository class, so I can't mock it.
This is a similar question but I find no satisfactory answer was given. Can I solve this in a neat way, maybe using StructureMap as a solution? Or should I jsut suck it and pass a Repository to every controller and pass it again to the base controller? Again, It feels like so much work for something so simple. Thanks!
I see two options:
First:
Set the ViewData for MasterPage in YourBaseController.OnActionExecuting() or YourBaseController.OnActionExecuted():
public class YourBaseController : Controller
{
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
// Optional: Work only for GET request
if (filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.RequestType != "GET")
return;
// Optional: Do not work with AjaxRequests
if (filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAjaxRequest())
return;
...
filterContext.Controller.ViewData["foo"] = ...
}
}
Second:
Or create custom filter:
public class DataForMasterPageAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
// Optional: Work only for GET request
if (filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.RequestType != "GET")
return;
// Optional: Do not work with AjaxRequests
if (filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAjaxRequest())
return;
...
filterContext.Controller.ViewData["foo"] = ...
}
}
and then apply to your controllers:
[DataForMasterPage]
public class YourController : YourBaseController
{
...
}
I think the second solution is exactly for your case.
Based on this article, I've written a custom class which implements the Watin.Core.interfaces.IFindByDefaultFactory, but I don't think I'm correctly assigning it to the watin settings, because it is never used.
Basically, Where/when should I assign to the Settings.FindByDefaultFactory? I've tried in my test Setup, and the text fixture's constructor, but neither seem to cause my custom class to be used. The tests still run and work, but I have to use the full asp.net ID's.
I'm using Watin 2.0.15.928 in VS2008 from nUnit 2.5.2.9222. I am running visual studio as administrator, and tests run sucessfully as long as I don't rely on my custom find logic.
Here's what the start of my text fixture looks like, where I set the FindByDefaultFactory
namespace Fundsmith.Web.Main.BrowserTests
{
[TestFixture]
class WatinHomepageTests
{
private IE _ie;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
Settings.FindByDefaultFactory = new FindByAspIdFactory();
_ie = new IE("http://localhost/somepage.aspx");
}
//etc etc...
And this is what my custom Find By Default factory looks like (simplified), unfortunately, it's never called.
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using WatiN.Core;
using WatiN.Core.Constraints;
using WatiN.Core.Interfaces;
namespace Fundsmith.Web.Main.BrowserTests
{
public class FindByAspIdFactory : IFindByDefaultFactory
{
public Constraint ByDefault(string value)
{
// This code is never called :(
// My custom find by id code to cope with asp.net webforms ids...
return Find.ById(value);
}
public Constraint ByDefault(Regex value)
{
return Find.ById(value);
}
}
}
Edit: Extra information after the fact.
Based on me fuguring this out, (see answer below), It turns out that the way I was consuming Watin to find the elements was wrong. I was explicitly calling Find.ById, rather than letting the default action occur. So I'd reassigned the default but was then failing to use it!
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField(Find.ById("textBoxId")).TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
Right, I've figured this one out, and it was me being an idiot and explicitly calling the Find.ById method, rather than letting the default action occur. It seems the test setup is a fine place to set the FindByDefaultFactory.
ie, I was doing this (wrong):
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField(Find.ById("textBoxId")).TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
When I should have been simply doing this. (Without the explicit "Find.ById")
[Test]
public void StepOneFromHomepageShouldRedirectToStepTwo()
{
_ie.TextField("textBoxId").TypeText("100");
//Other test stuff...
}
Not only was this me being stupid, but I didn't include this in my original question, so it would have been impossible for anyone else to figure it out for certain. Double slaps for me.
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)");
}
}
What I'd like to do is something like the following:
FooClass.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:FooClass = new FooClass();
foo.method();
Which is to say, I'd like to extend a generated class with a single method, not via inheritance but via the prototype.
The class is generated from a WSDL, it's not a dynamic class, and I don't want to touch the generated code because it will be overwritten anyway.
Long story short, I'd like to have the moral equivalent of C# 3:s Extension Methods for AS3.
Edit: I accepted aib's answer, because it fits what I was asking best -- although upon further reflection it doesn't really solve my problem, but that's my fault for asking the wrong question. :) Also, upmods for the good suggestions.
Yes, such a thing is possible.
In fact, your example is very close to the solution.
Try
foo["method"]();
instead of
foo.method();
#Theo: How would you explain the following working in 3.0.0.477 with the default flex-config.xml (<strict>true</strict>) and even a -compiler.strict parameter passed to mxmlc?
Foo.as:
package
{
public class Foo
{
public var foo:String;
public function Foo()
{
foo = "foo!";
}
}
}
footest.as:
package
{
import flash.display.Sprite;
public class footest extends Sprite
{
public function footest()
{
Foo.prototype.method = function():String
{
return "Something";
}
var foo:Foo = new Foo();
trace(foo["method"]());
}
}
}
Note that the OP said inheritance was unacceptable, as was modifying the generated code. (If that weren't the case, adding "dynamic" to the class definition would probably be the easiest solution.)
Depending on how many methods your class has, this may work:
Actual Class:
public class SampleClass
{
public function SampleClass()
{
}
public function method1():void {
Alert.show("Hi");
}
Quick Wrapper:
var actualClass:SampleClass = new SampleClass();
var QuickWrapper:Object = {
ref: actualClass,
method1: function():void {
this.ref.method1();
},
method2: function():void {
Alert.show("Hello!");
}
};
QuickWrapper.method1();
QuickWrapper.method2();
#aib is unfortunately incorrect. Assuming strict mode (the default compiler mode) it is not possible to modify the prototype of non-dynamic class types in ActionScript 3. I'm not even sure that it's possible in non-strict mode.
Is wrapping an option? Basically you create a class that takes one of the objects you get from the web service and just forwards all method calls to that, but also has methods of its own:
public class FooWrapper extends Foo {
private var wrappedFoo : Foo;
public function FooWrapper( foo : Foo ) {
wrappedFoo = foo;
}
override public function methodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.methodFromFoo();
}
override public function anotherMethodFromFoo( ) : void {
wrappedFoo.anotherMethodFromFoo();
}
public function newMethodNotOnFoo( ) : String {
return "Hello world!"
}
}
When you want to work with a Foo, but also have the extra method you need you wrap the Foo instance in a FooWrapper and work with that object instead.
It's not the most convenient solution, there's a lot of typing and if the generated code changes you have to change the FooWrapper class by hand, but unless you can modify the generated code either to include the method you want or to make the class dynamic I don't see how it can be done.
Another solution is to add a step to your build process that modifies the source of the generated classes. I assume that you already have a step that generates the code from a WSDL, so what you could do is to add a step after that that inserts the methods you need.
Monkey patching is an (inelegant) option.
For example, suppose you don't like the fact that Flex 3 SpriteAsset.as returns a default border metrics of [7,7,7,7] (unlike flex 2). To fix this, you can:
Create a copy of SpriteAsset.as and add it to your project at /mx/core/SpriteAsset.as
Edit your local copy to fix any problems you find
Run your ap
Google "flex monkey patch" for more examples and instructions.