Is there a way to use dictionary rather than using a yaml config for parameters.yml? I want to keep it as a Python Object because my IDE can then track the dependency easily. For my parameters, I am injecting functions in it.
If i need to use yml, I will have to use
def steps1(x, func1):
func1 = eval(func1)
And this will break the refactoring features easily.
You could overwrite the params property in your src.package_name.run.ProjectContext so that it uses a Python dictionary instead of the config loader. You’re also welcome to write up your custom ConfigLoader and use that instead (by overriding _create_config_loader), but that’s probably more effort.
Please bear in mind that parameters in Kedro are meant to be “as dumb as possible” though, as it’s considered static configuration and it’s better separated out of code. What you describe, with expressions, sounds more suited for nodes.
Related
I am pretty happy with bit.dev. But there is one point I am not getting to work.
I need some global functions like formatting currency or saving same constants and enums, that I want to use from different components.
One way would be to add the code to every single component, but that would be just code duplication. The other way could be to create a component with just constants or helper functions, but I don't know whether bit is designed for that way.
Is there some best practice how I could solve that problem?
best regarts!
I work at Bit. In Bit, we solved it by having a scope for utilities functions, which we named toolbox.
Inside that scope, you can publish each of your functions as a nodeJS component. You can give it a look here to our Toolbox
Inside of it, we created several namespaces. We have one for strings, arrays, filesystem, and many others.
The principle is the same as you have been working so far: create your component, export it, and import it to any project you may need.
Let me know if that helped
I am writing a script that takes data from a database and creates GoogleChart URLs from the parsed data. I only need to create two type of charts, Pie and Bar, so is it wrong if I stick both of those classes in the same file just to keep the number of files I have low?
Thanks
If you're asking the "ruby" way, then it is to put your classes in separate files. As some others have alluded to, placing your classes in separate files scales better. If you place multiple classes in the same file and they start to grow, then you're going to need to separate them later.
So why not have them separate from the beginning?
UPDATE
I should also mention that autoload works by expecting classes to be in their own files. For instance, if you're in a Rails environment and you don't separate classes into different files, you'll have to require the file explicitly. The best place to do this would be in the application.rb file. I know you're not in a Rails environment, but for others who may find this answer, maybe this info will be helpful.
UPDATE2
By 'autoload', I meant Rails autoload. If you configure your own autoload, you can put classes in the same file; but again, why? The Ruby and Java communities usually expect classes to be in separate files. The only exception are nested classes, but that's for more advanced design patterns.
Usually more less-complex files are better than less more-complex ones. Specially if you need to share the code with others.
It's not wrong. If your code is simple enough* then by all means put all of it in one file.
On the other hand, if you think your code is going to get more complex later, or if you plan to use automated testing tools later, you will be doing yourself a big favour if you deal with the structure of all that now.
(* My personal rule of thumb: about 200 lines.)
In response to a previous question on how to achieve a certain effect with Swing, I was directed to JDesktopPane and JInternalFrame. Unfortunately, scala.swing doesn't seem to have any wrapper for either class, so I'm left with extending it.
What do I have to know and do to make minimally usable wrappers for these classes, to be used with and by scala.swing, and what would be the additional steps to make most of them?
Edit:
As suggested by someone, let me explain the effect I intend to achieve. My program controls (personal) lottery bets. So I have a number of different tickets, each of which can have a number of different bets, and varying validities.
The idea is displaying each of these tickets in a separate "space", and the JInternalFrames seems to be just what I want, and letting people create new tickets, load them from files, save them to files, and generally checking or editing the information in each.
Besides that, there needs to be a space to display the lottery results, and I intend to evolve the program to be able to control collective bets -- who contributed with how much, and how any winning should be split. I haven't considered the interface for that yet.
Please note that:
I can't "just use" the Java classes, and still take full advantage of Scala swing features. The answers in the previous question already tell me how to do what I want with the Java classes, and that is not what I'm asking here.
Reading the source code of existing scala.swing classes to learn how to do it is the work I'm trying to avoid with this question.
You might consider Scala's "implicit conversions" mechanism. You could do something like this:
implicit def enrichJInternalFrame(ji : JInternalFrame) =
new RichJInternalFrame(ji)
You now define a class RichJInternalFrame() which takes a JInternalFrame, and has whatever methods you'd like to extend JInternalFrame with, eg:
class RichJInternalFrame(wrapped : JInternalFrame) {
def showThis = {
wrapped.show()
}
}
This creates a new method showThis which just calls show on the JInternalFrame. You could now call this method on a JInternalFrame:
val jif = new JInternalFrame()
println(jif.showThis);
Scala will automatically convert jif into a RichJInternalFrame and let you call this method on it.
You can import all java libraries directly into your scala code.
Try the scala tutorial section: "interaction with Java".
Java in scala
You might be be able to use the scala.swing source as reference e.g. http://lampsvn.epfl.ch/svn-repos/scala/scala/trunk/src/swing/scala/swing/Button.scala
What sort of scala features are you trying to use with it? That might help in coming up with with an answer. I.e. - what is it you're trying to do with it, potentially in Java? Then we can try to come up with a nicer way to do it with Scala and/or create a wrapper for the classes which would make what you're trying to do even easier.
In JRuby, you could mix in one (or more) traits into JDesktopPane or JInternalFrame instead of extending them. This way you wouldn't have to wrap the classes but just use the existing objects. As far as I know, this is not possible with Scala traits.
Luckily, there is a solution, almost as flexible as Ruby's: lexically open classes. This blog article gives an excellent introduction, IMHO.
What are the things you wish Ruby (and more generally the Ruby community) would improve?
I read somewhere that Ruby is the love-child of Smalltalk and LISP, with Miss Perl as the Nanny.
I have a lot of respect for Ruby's parents, but I'm not sure I like the influence Miss Perl had on the child. Specifically, I don't like the predefined variables: I need a cheat sheet to know what they mean. You could say "just don't use them". Well, I don't... but other people do. And when I download a plugin on the Web, I have no choice but to fetch my cheat-sheet if I ever need to go and touch the source code. I just wish they would remove those from the language itself.
Also, I think that Ruby is too much of a moving target. My code breaks on every new Ruby upgrade, even on minor releases. This is true also of Ruby on Rails and most Rails plugins I have worked with: they just change all the time, and nobody seems to care whether the changes break everything or not. IMHO, although I love a lot of things in Ruby, this lack of stability is almost a show-stopper.
I wish people would consider backward compatibility between minor releases as an unbreakable rule when releasing a new language (or library or framework) version.
I wish that some of the lesser used modules of the standard library were documented.
Make require-ing files less painful. Don't ask me how, but maybe have one file dedicated to knowing the paths involved and just get rid of the relative path crud from everything else.
Getting rid of the artificial distinction between Modules and Classes would be nice.
Both Modules and Classes are Namespaces. Modules are also Mixins, while Classes aren't. Classes can also be instantiated while Modules can't. This distinction is unnecessary. Just get rid of Modules and allow Classes to be used as Mixins.
An example of a language where this works is Newspeak.
I'd appreciate being able to install ruby 1.9 as an RPM rather than having to use the source.
Make Ruby completely Message Sending based, get rid of everything that is not a message send: local variables, global variables, instance variables, class hierarchy variables, constants, magic globals, magic constants, builtin operators, builtin keywords, even literals. See Self, Ioke or Newspeak for the incredible power and elegance this gains.
I wish they would get rid of the predefined variables: $!, $&, $+, etc.
I would like to have support for static compile-time metaprogramming. The Converge Programming Language might be a good starting point.
Replace the Mixin system with a Traits system.
Replace Exceptions with a Common Lisp style Conditions system.
For example, referencing something as System.Data.Datagrid as opposed to just Datagrid. Please provide examples and explanation. Thanks.
The benefit is that you don't need to add an import for everything you use, especially if it's the only thing you use from a particular namespace, it also prevents collisions.
The downside, of course, is that the code balloons out in size and gets harder to read the more you use specific qualifiers.
Personally I tend to use imports for most things unless I know for sure I will only be using something from a particular namespace once or twice, so it won't impact the readability of my code.
You're being very explicit about the type you're referencing, and that is a benefit. Although, in the very same process you're giving up code clarity, which clearly is a downside in my case, as I want code to be readable and understandable. I go for the short version unless I have a conflict in different namespaces which can only be solved with the explicit referencing to classes.. Unless I make an alias for it with the keyword using:
using Datagrid = System.Data.Datagrid;
Actually the full path is global::System.Data.DataGrid. The point of using a more qualified path is to avoid having to use additional using statements, especially if the introduction of another using will cause problems with type resolution. More fully qualified identifiers exist so that you can be explicit when you need to be explicit, but if the class's namespace is clear, then the DataGrid version is clearer to many.
I generally use the shortest form available in order to keep the code as clean and readable as possible. That's what using directives are for, after all, and tooltips in the VS editor give you instant detail on the provenance of a type.
I also tend to use a namespace tag for RCWs in a COM interop layer, to call out those variables explicitly in the code (they may need special attention on lifecycle and collection), eg
using _Interop = Some.Interop.Namespace;
In terms of performance there is no upside/downside. Everything is resolved at compile time and the generated MSIL is identical whether you use fully-qualified names or not.
The reason why its use is prevalent in the .NET world is because of auto-generated code, such as designer markup. In that case it would be better to fully-qualify names like class names because of possible conflicts with other classes you may have in your code.
If you have a tool like ReSharper, it will actually tell you what fully-qualified references you have are unnecessary (e.g. by graying them out) so you can lop them off. If you frequently cut-paste code across your various code bases, it would be a must to fully qualify them. (then again, why would you want to do cut-paste all the time; it's a bad form of code reuse!)
I don't think there is really a downside, just readability vs actual time spent coding. In general if you don't have namespaces with ambiguous object I don't think it's really needed. Another thing to consider is level of use. If you have one method that uses reflection and you are alright with typeing System.Reflection 10 times, then it's not a big deal but if you plan on using a namespace alot then I would recommend an include.
Depending on your situation, extra qualifiers will generate a warning (if this is what you mean by redundant). If you then treat warnings as errors, that's a pretty serious downside.
I've run into this with GCC for example.
struct A {
int A::b; // warning!
}