Due to the fact that my setups keeps growing I'd like to use some more features of TestNG.
So today I tried to exclude a groud in my testng.xml file.
When I declare a whole Class to be part of a group, this doesn't prevent the constructor to do it's work (initiating a WebDriver instance).
#Test(groups = "default")
public class ABCDefaultTest extends AbstractABCTest {
public ABCDefaultTest() {
super();
}
}
Please note: AbstractABCTest is part of "abc" group
I thought of quitting the WebDriver in the AfterClass method and added (alwaysRun = true) but that didn't work.
Seems that the constructor isn't part of the group (which is good if you have different groups in one class) but the #AfterClass (alwaysRun = true) annotated method is...
But if there's only the group specified for the class and no partial groups it makes no sense to initiate the class right?
Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong or if this is a bug?
Your interpretation is correct, groups only apply to TestNG annotated methods. You should avoid doing work in the constructor that you don't want to happen if a group is excluded.
How about doing this work in a #Before* method that belongs to that group? Then you just need to decide which configuration method is appropriate for you: #BeforeSuite, #BeforeTest, #BeforeGroup or #BeforeClass.
Related
Given the following classes
abstract class SomeAbstractClass { abstract val name: String }
data class DataClass( override val name: String ) : SomeAbstractClass()
class NoDataClass( override val name: String ) : SomeAbstractClass()
For any instance of SomeAbstractClass, can I determine whether it is a data class without relying on type checking?
Some background: this seemed the best way of combining inheritance and data classes to me, as suggested in a different answer. Now, within the initializer block of SomeAbstractClass, I want to throw an exception in case the derived type is not a data class to ensure 'correct' (immutable) implementations of derived types.
Using reflection, the Kotlin class description (KClass) can be obtained using the ::class syntax on the instance you want to investigate (in your case, this::class in the initializer block of the abstract class). This gives you access to isData:
true if this class is a data class.
However, as Oliver points out, data classes can still contain var members, so you likely also want to check whether all member variables (and their member variables recursively) are defined as val to ensure immutability of all deriving classes.
I have a couple of class files in C#. I want to write a method that could be used in all the classes. For example, I am trying to write the method that returns the number of rows from the database table, and I need this in multiple times, so thought of writing a single method to share among all the classes. I thought it would be easy with the use of namespace. But when I add namespace in all the class files, it gives error stating "CONTROL NAME is not present in current context". From the internet search I came to the conclusion that I also need to add the namespace in xxx.designer.cs files. Is it correct? I tried to find the designer.cs files but could not, and in one of the solution it was stated that designer.cs file is created during compile time. If so how to add the namespace on designer.cs file.
Thank you!!!
You need to create a static class and this function that classes need to share has to be a static member.
This function can now be called from anywhere.
static class Helper
{
public static string Calculate(int myVariable)
{
//do some common calculation
}
//...
}
If these classes have common data members and you need to share a common function, you can consider using a base class. All common functionality and common data members would go into the base class, and by merit of inheriting that class, all your sub classes would be able to call this function.
Create a Static class and create static member functions into that. You need not to create instance of the class in this case and you can directly call member function using class name.
I need it in FlexUnit to test private methods. Is there any possibility to do this via reflection by using describeType or maybe flexUnit has some build in facility? I dislike artificial limitation that i cannot test private functions, it greatly reduces flexibility. Yes it is good design for me to test private functions, so please do not advise me to refactor my code. I do not want to break the encapsulation for the sake of unit testing.
I'm 99% certain this isn't possible and I'm intrigued to know why you would want to do this.
You should be unit testing the output of a given class, based on given inputs, regardless of what happens inside the class. You really want to allow someone to be able to change the implementation details so long as it doesn't change the expected outputs (defined by the unit test).
If you test private methods, any changes to the class are going to be tightly coupled to the unit tests. if someone wants to reshuffle the code to improve readability, or make some updates to improve performance, they are going to have to update the unit tests even though the class is still functioning as it was originally designed.
I'm sure there are edge cases where testing private methods might be beneficial but I'd expect in the majority of cases it's just not needed. You don't have to break the encapsulation, just test that your method calls give correct outputs... no matter what the code does internally.
Just create a public method called "unitTest" and call all your unit tests within that method. Throw an error when one of them fails and call it from your test framework:
try {
myobject.unitTest();
} catch (Exception e) {
//etc.
}
You cannot use describeType for that.
From the Livedocs - flash.utils package:
[...]
Note: describeType() only shows public properties and methods, and will not show
properties and methods that are private, package internal or in custom namespaces.
[...]
When the urge to test a private method is irresistible I just create a testable namespace for the method.
Declare a namespace in a file like this:
package be.xeno.namespaces
{
public namespace testable = "http://www.xeno.be/2015/testable";
}
Then you can use the testable as a custom access modifier for the method you want to test like this:
public class Thing1
{
use namespace testable;
public function Thing1()
{
}
testable function testMe() : void
{
}
}
You can then access that modifier by using the namespace in your tests:
public class Thing2
{
use namespace testable;
public function Thing2()
{
var otherThing : Thing1 = new Thing1();
otherThing.testMe();
}
}
Really though I think this is a hint that you should be splitting your functionality into a separate class.
This question is meant to apply to interfaces in general, but I'll use AS3/Flex for my language. It should be [mostly] obvious how to apply it in different languages.
If I create a base class, and it extends an interface, there is an explicit contract defined: for every method in the interface, the base class must implement said method.
This is easy enough. But I don't understand why you have the capacity to cast an interfaced instance back to its original base class. Of course, I've had to do this a few times (the example below is very close to the situation I'm struggling with), but that doesn't mean I understand it :^)
Here's a sample interface:
public interface IFooable extends IUIComponent {
function runFoo():void;
}
Let's say I create a base class, which extends VBox and implements the interface:
public class Foo extends VBox implements IFooable {
public Foo() {
super();
//stuff here to create Foo..blah blah
}
public function runFoo():void {
// do something to run foo
}
}
Now, the reason I used the interface, is because I want to guarantee "runFoo" is always implemented. It is a common piece of functionality all of my classes should have, regardless of how they implement it. Thus, my parent class (an Application) will instantiate Foo via its interface:
public function init():void {
var foo:IFooable = new Foo();
foo.percentHeight = 100; //works because of IUIComponent
}
But, if I want to add Foo to the Application container, I now have to cast it back to the base class (or to a different base class):
public function init():void {
var foo:IFooable = new Foo();
foo.percentHeight = 100;
addChild(foo as DisplayObject); //_have_ to cast, because addChild takes a 'DisplayObject' class type
//could also do this:
//addChild(foo as VBox);
}
Wasn't the original intention to hide the implementation of Foo? There is still an assumption that Foo is a DisplayObject. Unfortunately, being able to add the custom object to a container seems impossible without casting.
Am I missing something entirely? Is this really just a phenomenon in Flex/AS3? If you have a container in the base API of a language, and it only allows you to add children of a certain class type, how do you then abstract out implementation?
For the record, this question appears to ask if this sort of operation is possible, but it doesn't really address why it might be bad design (and how to fix it).
2nd Thought:
Abstract Classes:
As Matthew pointed out, abstract classes helps solve some of this: I could create a base abstract class which inherits from the DisplayObject (or, in my case, the VBox, since it is a child of DisplayObject), and have the base class implement the interface. Thus, any class which extends the abstract class would then be required to implement the methods therein.
Great idea -- but AS3 doesn't have abstract classes (to my knowledge, anyway).
So, I could create a base class which implements interface and extends the VBox, and inherit from it, and I could insert code in those methods which need to be extended; such code would throw an error if the base class is the executor. Unfortunately, this is run-time checking as opposed to compile-time enforcement.
It's still a solution, though.
Context:
Some context might help:
I have an application which can have any number of sub-containers. Each of these sub-containers will have their own respective configuration options, parameters, etc. The application itself, however, has a global ApplicationControlBar which will contain the entry-point Menu for accessing these configuration options. Therefore, whenever I add a sub-component to the main Application (via "addChild"), it will also "register" its own configuration options with the ApplicationControlBar menu. This keeps the knowledge of configurability with the containers themselves, yet allows for a more unified means of accessing them.
Thus, when I create each container, I want to instantiate them via their interface so I can guarantee they can register with the ApplicationControlBar. But when I add them to the application, they need to be the base class.
#James Ward, That's definitely something I wish was in the language, probably a interface IDisplayObject. That would solve a lot of issues in OOP display programing in AS3.
In regards the the original question, something I've used in the past, and have seen mentioned on www.as3dp.com is to include a getDisplay():DisplayObject method in the interface, which would typically return "this" by its implementor. It's less than ideal, but works.
#Matthew Flaschen, While we don't have Abstarct Classes native to AS3, common practice is to name the class with the word Abstract ie: AbstarctMyObject, and then just treat it like the abstarct objects in Java and other languages. Our want for true abstarct classes is something the Flash player team is well aware of, and we'll likly see it in the next version of the ActionScript language.
Okay, I'm anaswering generally, because you said, "Is this really just a phenomenon in Flex/AS3?".
In your init method, obviously you're always calling addChild with foo. That means foo must always be an instance of DisplayObject. You also want it to be an instance of IFooable (though it's not clear here why). Since DisplayObject is a class, you would consider using a subclass of DisplayObject (e.g. FooableDisplayObject), that implemented IFooable. In Java, this would the below. I'm not familiar with AS, but I think this shows there's not any general flaw in interfaces here.
interface IFooable
{
public void runFoo();
}
class DisplayObject
{
}
abstract class FooableDisplayObject extends DisplayObject implements IFooable
{
}
class Foo extends FooableDisplayObject
{
public void runFoo()
{
}
}
public void init()
{
FooableDisplayObject foo = new Foo();
foo.percentHeight = 100;
addChild(foo);
}
I think this is a place where Flex's/Flash's API is not correct. I think that addChild should take an interface not a class. However since that is not the case you have to cast it. Another option would be to monkey patch UIComponent so that it takes an interface or maybe add another method like addIChild(IUIComponent). But that's messy. So I recommend you file a bug.
Situation here is that it should be just the other way around for optimal practice... you shouldn't look to cast your interface to a displayobject but to have your instance already as a displayobject and then cast that to your interface to apply specific methods.
Let's say I have a baseclass Page and other subclasses Homepage, Contactpage and so on. Now you don't apply stuff to the baseclass as it's kind of abstract but you desing interfaces for your subclasses.
Let's say sub-pages implement for example an interface to deal with init, addedtostage, loader and whatever, and another one that deals with logic, and have eventually the base req to be manageble as displayobjects.
Getting to design the implementation.. one should just use an interface for specialized stuff and extend the subclass from where it mainly belongs to.. now a page has a 'base' meaning to be displayed (design wise.. the 'base'-class is a displayobject) but may require some specialization for which one builds an interface to cover that.
public class Page extends Sprite{...}
public interface IPageLoader{ function loadPage():void{}; function initPage():void{}; }
public class Homepage extends Page implements IPageLoader
{ function loadPage():void{/*do stuff*/}; function initPage():void{/*do stuff*/}; }
var currentpage:Page;
var currentpageLoader:IPageLoader;
currentpage = new Homepage;
currentpageLoader = currentpage as IPageLoader;
currentpageLoader.loadPage();
currentpageLoader.initPage();
addChild(currentpage);
Tween(currentpage, x, CENTER);
Just as the title asks, when should a trigger in your head go off signifying "Aha! I should use the factory pattern here!"? I find these moments will occur with many other design patterns, but never do I stop myself and think about this pattern.
Whenever you find yourself with code that looks something like this, you should probably be using a factory:
IFoo obj;
if ( someCondition ) {
obj = new RegularFoo();
} else if ( otherCondition ) {
obj = new SpecialFoo();
} else {
obj = new DefaultFoo();
}
The factory pattern is best employed in situations where you want to encapsulate the instantiation of a group of objects inside a method.
In other words, if you have a group of objects that all inherit from the same base class or all implement the same interface that would be an instance where you would want to use the factory pattern (that would be the "pattern" you would look for).
I can think of two specific cases that I think of the factory pattern:
When the constructor has logic in it.
When I don't want the application to worry about what type gets instantiated (eg, I have an abstract base class or interface that I am returning).
Quoted from GoF:
Use the Factory Method pattern when
a class can't anticipate the class of objects it must create
a class wants its subclasses to specify the object it creates
classes delegate responsibility to one of several helper subclasses, and you want to localize the knowledge of which helper subclass is the delegate.
I highly recommend the GoF book. It has a section on the applicability of each of the 23 patterns it covers.
Are you talking about Factory Method or Abstract Factory?
The basic problem that both solve is letting clients specify the exact class that framework code constructs. For example, if you provide an interface, that clients can implement, and then in your code have something like:
IMyInterface x = new ConcreteClass();
There is no way for clients to change the exact class that was created without access to that code.
A Factory Method is a virtual method that constructs a concrete class of a specific interface. Clients to your code can provide an object that overrides that method to choose the class they want you to create. It might look like this in your code:
IMyInterface x = factory.Create();
factory was passed in by the client, and implements an interface that contains Create() -- they can decide the exact class.
Abstract Factory should be used if you have hierarchies of related objects and need to be able to write code that only talks to the base interfaces. Abstract Factory contains multiple Factory Methods that create a specific concrete object from each hierarchy.
In the Design Patterns book by the Gang of Four, they give an example of a maze with rooms, walls and doors. Client code might look like this:
IRoom r = mazeFactory.CreateRoom();
IWall nw = mazeFactory.CreateWall();
IWall sw = mazeFactory.CreateWall();
IWall ew = mazeFactory.CreateWall();
IWall ww = mazeFactory.CreateWall();
r.AddNorthWall(nw);
r.AddSouthWall(sw);
r.AddEastWall(ew);
r.AddWestWall(ww);
(and so on)
The exact concrete walls, rooms, doors can be decided by the implementor of mazeFactory, which would implement an interface that you provide (IMazeFactory).
So, if you are providing interfaces or abstract classes, that you expect other people to implement and provide -- then factories are a way for them to also provide a way for your code to construct their concrete classes when you need them.
Factories are used a lot in localisation, where you have a screen with different layouts, prompts, and look/feel for each market. You get the screen Factory to create a screen based on your language, and it creates the appropriate subclass based on its parameter.