Sometimes you want to analyze all the methods in the image. One way to do this is to work with CompiledMethod allInstances. But it is dangerous to do it this way, as
You may end up with old methods that were not garbage-collected yet.
There may be compiled methods of anonymous classes or other instances that are there for technical reasons.
A dialect independent expression would be
ProtoObject withAllSubclasses gather: [:cls |
cls methodDictionary values asArray,
cls class methodDictionary values asArray]
One thing that I came up with is:
RPackage organizer packages flatCollect: #methods
I'd suggest using SystemNavigation which is the class designed for this:
SystemNavigation default allMethodsSelect: [:m | true]
Related
I have a program that will grab several global settings from an API when first logged in. These values are then used extensively throughout the program. Currently I am storing them in global variables, but it does not seem very OOP.
What are the alternatives to global variables for storing extensively used settings? Use constants? Class variables? Where would I initialize the values through the API call, since this would only need to happen once? I have seen some examples that instantiate a class to get to the variables but that does not make much sense to me.
I would like to set the values on login and after this call the variables everywhere else with a simple expression like Global.myvalue or GLOBAL_MYVALUE
The Singleton Pattern might be handy for this:
https://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.1.0/libdoc/singleton/rdoc/Singleton.html
It's hard to give you a concise answer based on the information you provided, but I would avoid using global variables at all costs.
A good starting point would be to think of a class that could be a common ancestor to all the places where you use these variables and store them in that class. If your subclasses inherit from that class, these variables will automatically be available in their context.
Edit: like #seph posted, the singleton pattern seems to be a much better solution though
If we omit visibility modifiers(let's say all methods are public), is there any common convension to put new methods in class? I mean if I put them on bottom it's logically correct, because methods are sorted by date. If I put them on top, it's easy to see and compare what methods are added if the class is very long.
Just depends on what you and your team are comfortable with. I usually have method at the top of my class followed by fields. If there are many method that do different thing you are better off organizing them in a new class. Now without seeing any code I'm simply guessing.
No, I don't think there is.
As Kalagen said it's up to you and your team to decide it.
I would keep any methods that share similar functionality together and keep the class definition short.
The short answer in my opinion is no. Coding style might vary depending on the language you are using and the team you are working with. In addition you might have your own preference as well. I tend to add new methods close to methods that are related to it (e.g. if method1 calls method2 then method1 is above method2). Then it is relatively easy to find the method that's being called. On the other hand, most IDEs can find the method with a mouse click.
If you're using version control, you can easily see what methods were added and in which order, so sorting by date is not needed.
And as others have mentioned, keep the class small. Take a look at the Single responsibility principle. If the methods you are adding are not related to the responsibility of the class, extract them and create a new class.
Thanks to some other posts and reading, I understand singleton/meta classes. And I understand why we'd want to use them on a class. But I still don't understand why we'd want to use them on instance objects. And I've yet to see it in practice.
I'm referring to something like this:
class Vehicle
def odometer_reading
# some code
end
end
my_car = Vehicle.new
def my_car.open_door
# some code
end
At first thought, this seems like a bad idea as it would lead to difficulties in understanding the code and debugging.
Why would we want to do this? What are some examples of when this is a good idea?
One example is using it for testing purposes: creating mock and double objects, stubbing methods. Debugging is somewhere nearby: re-defining the logging method for a specific object that you suspect is mis-behaving, so that the log info is printed directly to console (or more info is printed) during the debug session.
Another example is dealing with special cases - instead of inheritance you can do just that. Starting from a classical example if you use two types of Employees, say, Engineers and SalesPersons, for which the rules of compensation calculation are different, you can put the common logic into the Employee class, then inherit the other two classes from it and implement their own calculate_salary methods there. Now, if there is an outlier - a star salesman that you have agreed to a different compensation scheme with, a CEO with a very special scheme, etc - instead of creating a whole sub-class for this special employee, you can just define this method for a specific object representing that employee.
The third example is dealing with an object lifecycle and performance considerations. Instead of having a long case of various states in some processing method. E.g. for a file-reading class that transparently caches the entire file in the background (I know a too-simplistic-for-real-life approach, but just as a model) all read requests while the file is not entirely read should check if the requested data is already in the cache or should be read from disk. Once the file is fully read they always go from the cache. Instead of having the if (case if there are more states) to deal with this you could simply re-define the read method at the object-level once the file is fully read to the cache. For this simple example it doesn't lead to any sizable performance benefit (if any benefit at all), but for more complex cases that may be worth it.
You wouldn't add them using def, that's a rather rigid way of doing it, but instead by using something like define_method or extend.
Although this is not the sort of thing you'd do on a routine basis, it does mean you can do some rather unusual things. ActiveRecord in Rails produces results in the form of an Array with additional methods added on to perform other operations.
An Object-Relationship Mapper would be a case where you'd probably want to do this. Sometimes, depending on how you fetch a record, the methods available differ significantly. Being able to add those dynamically means each fetched object can be completely customized even if they have the same class and general-purpose methods.
Another example: You have an array of hashes and you want each hash to have a method-call getter and setter. Something like:
user = HashOnSteroids.new(name: 'John')
user[:name] # => 'John'
user[:name] = 'Joe'
user.name # => 'Joe'
user.name = 'John'
user.set(name: 'Jim', age: 5)
This means you cannot write standard method definitions in the class as each hash will have a different set of keys (method names). This means you have to resort to defining singleton methods so each object has its own set of methods (not a pack of shared methods).
Warning: Using singleton methods for this use case is highly inefficient. A sneaky method_missing is faster and uses way less memory as it doesn't have to allocate a billion of proc objects.
I'm implementing several classes which does not have data by itself, just logics. These classes implements access control policy to date which depends on several parameters taken from data from other models.
I initially try to find answer to "Where to store such classes?" here, and the answer was apps/models directory. That's ok, but I like to clearly separate these classes from ActiveRecord inherited classes in hierarchy, both as file and class.
So, I created classes inside Logic module, like Logic::EvaluationLogic or Logic::PhaseLogic. I also wanted to have constants which passed between these logics. I prefer to place these constants into Logic module too. Thus, I implemented like this:
# in logic/phase_logic.rb
module Logic
PHASE_INITIAL = 0
PHASE_MIDDLE = 1000
class PhaseLogic
def self.some_phase_control_code
end
end
end
# in logic/evaluation_logic.rb
module Logic
class EvaluationLogic
def self.some_other_code
Logic::PhaseLogic.self.some_phase_control_code(Logic::PHASE_INITIAL)
end
end
end
Now, it work just fine with rspec (It passes tests I wrote without issues), but not with development server, since it can't find the Logic::PHASE_INITIAL constant.
I suspect it's related to the mismatch of the autoloading scheme of Rails and what I wanted to do. I tried to tweak rails, but no luck, ended-up with eliminating module Logic wrap.
Now the question I want to ask: How I can organize these classes with Rails?
I'm using 3.2.1 at this moment.
Posted a follow-up question "How I can organize namespace of classes in app/modules with rails?"
I am not sure whether I really understand your classes, but couldn't you create a Logic module or (I would rather do this:) PhaseLogic and EvaluationLogic objects in /lib directory?
It is not said that "Model" is always descendant of ActiveRecord. If the object belongs to "business logic" then it is a model. You can have models which do not touch database in any way. So, if your classes are "business objects", place them in 'app/models' and use like any other model.
Another question is whether you should use inheritance or modules - but I would rather think about including a module in PhaseLogic, and not about defining PhaseLogic in a module. Of course, all this depends heavily on the intended role of your objects.
Because in Ruby the class of object is not important, you do not need to use inheritance. If you want to 'plug' the logic objects into other objects, just take care that all '*Logic' classes have the required methods. I know that all I said is very vague, but I think I cannot give you some more concrete suggestions without knowing more about the role of these objects.
Ah, and one more thing!
If you find yourself fighting with Rails class autoloading, just use the old require "lib/logic.rb" in all the classes where you are using Logic::PHASE_INITIAL constants.
In this case I suppose that your problem was caused by different order of loading. The logic/evaluation_logic.rb has been loaded before logic/phase_logic.rb. The problem may disappear if you create logic.rb somewhere, where class autoloading can find it, and define these constants in that file.
Don't name your classes or modules Logic use specific names. Start with extracting logic into separate classes and then try to break them into smaller ones. Use namespaces to distinguish them from each other in lib folder, after this steps you would be able to extract some logic parts to separate gems and reduce codebase and complexity of application. Also take a look into presenter pattern.
I'm interested in simply slowing down the evaluation of ruby code. Of course I know about using sleep(), but that does not solve my problem.
Rather, I want to slow down every single object instantiation and destruction that happens in the VM.
Why? So I can learn about how particular procedures in ruby work by watching them being carried out. I recently learned about ObjectSpace and the ability to see/inspect all the objects currently living in a Ruby VM. It seems that building a simple realtime display of the objects and properties of those objects within the ObjectSpace and then slowing down the evaluation would achieve this.
I realize there may be ways of viewing in realtime more detailed logs of what is happening inside the ruby process, including many procedures that are implemented at low-level, below the level of actual ruby code. But I think simply seeing the creation and destruction of objects and their properties in realtime would be more edifying and easier to follow.
You could be interested in the answer to this question: getting in-out from ruby methods
With small edits to the code reported there, you could add a sleep to each method call and follow the code execution.
If you want to output some information every time an object is instantiated, you could do that by overriding Class#new. Here's an example:
class Class
alias old_new new
def new(*args)
puts "Creating: #{self.inspect}"
sleep 0.1
old_new(*args)
end
end
class Point
end
class Circle
end
The alias old_new new line creates a backup new method, so we can have the old behaviour. Then, we override the new method and put some code to inspect the subject class and sleep for just a bit for the sake of better readability. Now, if you invoke Point.new, you'll see "Creating: Point". Circle.new will display a "Creating: Circle" and so on. Any objects that are created will be logged, or at least their classes, with a small delay.
The example is a modified version of the one from here.
As for destruction of objects, I'm not sure if there's a sensible way to do it. You could try to override some method in the GC module, but garbage collection is only initiated when it's necessary (as far as I'm aware), so you could easily play with ruby for a while without it ever happening. It probably wouldn't be very useful anyway.
I think the problem is not that ruby is too fast.
In your case you should use some software architecture, for example Model-View-Controller.
It could be in this way. In View you can show options at which speed the Controller should show information for you or you're able to slow down or increase the speed of showing information. Then Controller evaluate small steps (calling methods in Model) and rendered the results of evaluation in the View.
The View is not always the browser or window application, it could be also just a simple terminal.