Let's say I have something like this:
const (
FOO int = iota
BAR
BAZ
)
And I can access to variables by FOO, BAR and so on. But storing a big amount of constants in one namespace isn't good so I'm trying to hide this enum in structure or something like that so I can get value by typing actions.FOO in same namespace. I've tried many ways but didn't find anything like that. I would like to mention that easiest workaround, in this case, will be anonymous structure but I wanna keep auto indexing with iota.
The only way to assign some sort of enumerable behind the property without creating the separate package that I found is to use anonymous structure.
type someType int
var ConstantsList = struct {
FOO, BAR, BAZ someType
}{1, 2, 3}
There are few downsides of using it, it's not immutable, and doesn't have auto increment.
Related
I have a struct such as
type Info struct {
Foo string
FooBar string
Services string
Clown string
}
and lets say I have already populated the first 2 fields
input := &Info{
Foo: "true",
Services: "Massage",
}
Is there a way to "reopen" the struct to add missing elements. Something like this :
input = {
input,
Foobar: "Spaghetti",
Clown: "Carroussel"
}
Instead of
input.Foobar = "Spaghetti"
input.Clown = "Carroussel"
I have multiple fields and just don't really like having many lines input.Fields. I didn't find anything like it. So I was wondering.
No, this is not supported by the language's syntax.
Btw, the solution you want to avoid consists of less lines that the theoretical alternative :) (2 lines vs 4 lines in your example).
One could create a helper function which copies non-zero fields from one instance of a struct to another, so you could create a struct with the additional fields using a composite literal and use that as the source, but this requires using reflection, which is slow, and this solution wouldn't be more readable.
See related: "Merge" fields two structs of same type
What is the idiomatic way to define something like map[type]interface{}?
As far I can see the type (as keyword) is not something comparable so can not be used as a key in a map. Maybe I'm going in the wrong way, so U would accept any suggestion.
TL;DR;
Example motivation
Let's assume in the application model I have type called Person, being stored in a table named "person" of a rdbms.
If I would like to link the entity object Person to the the table name. Things that by definition doens't come together, so it is wise to avoid polluting the Person struct with "not-naturally-related" (this is where my java-OO-based mind appears) [pointer|value]-recieve methods, so a map could be in handy here, right? (maps are great for associating things from differents worlds or sets, right?)
var tableNameByType map[type]string = map[type]string{
Person: "person",
}
This statement causes the compiler to yell at me complaining about expected type, found 'type'. I have tried used instead of type, interface{} and struct, with no better results.
Use reflect.Type as the key:
var tableNameByType map[reflect.Type]string = map[reflect.Type]string{
reflect.TypeOf(Person{}): "person",
}
You can get the name for a type using:
name := tableNameByType[reflect.TypeOf(Person{})]
... or the name for value v using:
name := tableNameByType[reflect.ValueOf(v).Type()]
You can avoid instantiating the struct value by replacing reflect.TypeOf(Person{}) with reflect.TypeOf((*Person)(nil)).Elem() in the above code.
I'm developing an application where data is stored in mongodb. There are several collections and of course all of them have some common fields (like Id, creation date, etc) and methods (for example Insert). In my vision, I need to create base model struct with needed fields and methods, and then embed this struct into my models. Unfortunately, this doesn't work because method defined for base model doesn't see child fields.
I don't know how to explain further. Here is code in playground:
https://play.golang.org/p/_x-B78g4TV
It uses json instead of mgo, but idea is still the same.
I want the output to be:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42, "foo": "Some value for foo", "bar": "Here we set some value for bar"}
Not:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42}
Writing that insert method for each my model seems to be against DRY, so what is correct/idiomatic way to achieve this in Go?
This is not possible, for details see my answer: Can embedded struct method have knowledge of parent/child?
You may do 2 things:
1. Abandon method and make it a helper / utility function
The idea is to make Insert() detached from BaseModel and make it a simple function, and you pass the document to it which you want to save.
I personally prefer this option, as it requires less hassle and maintenance. It could look like this:
func Insert(doc interface{}) {
j, _ := json.Marshal(doc)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
You also had a "typo" in the tags:
type MyModel struct {
*BaseModel
Foo string `json:"foo"`
Bar string `json:"bar"`
}
Using it:
Insert(m)
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
2. Pass the (pointer to) the wrapper to the BaseModel
In this approach, you have to pass a pointer to the embedder struct so the BaseModel.Insert() method will have a pointer to it, and may use that to save / marshal. This is basically manually maintaining a "reference" to the struct that embeds us and is being saved/marshalled.
This is how it could look like:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
collectionName string
wrapper interface{}
}
And then in the Insert() method save the wrapper:
func (m *BaseModel) Insert() {
fmt.Printf("Saving to '%v'\n", m.collectionName)
j, _ := json.Marshal(m.wrapper)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
Creation is slightly more complex:
func NewMyModel() *MyModel {
mm := &MyModel{
Foo: "Some value for foo",
}
mm.BaseModel = NewBaseModel("my_model_collection", mm)
return mm
}
But output is as you wish:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
Try it on the Go Playground.
In Golang, you can't override a parent method, because that's not how polymorphism works. The Insert method will apply on the BaseModel member, and not on MyModel.
Also, you're trying to use mgo in an improper way. If you want to insert documents in collections, then you already have an Insert method for a Collection struct which works on interface{} types (same as json.Marshal).
Of course, you can have a BaseModel that will contain fields shared by all of your models. In fact, GORM uses a similar approach and provides a Model struct to be included in every child model.
Well known problem ;o) Member variables (like collectionName) which name starts with lower letter are not visible from other packages (like json). Therefore change struct to:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
CollectionName string `json:"collectionName"`
}
and world will be better place to live in.
I get cannot use map[string]MyType literal (type map[string]MyType) as type map[string]IterableWithID in argument to MapToList with the code below, how do I pass in a concrete map type to method that expects a interface type?
https://play.golang.org/p/G7VzMwrRRw
Go's interface convention doesn't quite work the same way as in, say, Java (and the designers apparently didn't like the idea of getters and setters very much :-/ ). So you've got two core problems:
A map[string]Foo is not the same as a map[string]Bar, even if Bar implements Foo, so you have to break it out a bit (use make() beforehand, then assign in a single assignment).
Interface methods are called by value with no pointers, so you really need to do foo = foo.Method(bar) in your callers or get really pointer-happy to implement something like this.
What you can do to more-or-less simulate what you want:
type IterableWithID interface {
SetID(id string) IterableWithID // use as foo = foo.SetID(bar)
}
func (t MyType) SetID(id string) IterableWithID {
t.ID = id
return t
}
...and to deal with the typing problem
t := make(map[string]IterableWithID)
t["foo"] = MyType{}
MapToList(t) // This is a map[string]IterableWithID, so compiler's happy.
...and finally...
value = value.SetID(key) // We set back the copy of the value we mutated
The final value= deals with the fact that the method gets a fresh copy of the value object, so the original would be untouched by your method (the change would simply vanish).
Updated code on the Go Playground
...but it's not particularly idiomatic Go--they really want you to just reference struct members rather than use Java-style mutators in interfaces (though TBH I'm not so keen on that little detail--mutators are supes handy to do validation).
You can't do what you want to do because the two map types are different. It doesn't matter that the element type of one is a type that implements the interface which is the element type of the other. The map type that you pass into the function has to be map[string]IterableWithID. You could create a map of that type, assign values of type MyType to the map, and pass that to the function.
See https://play.golang.org/p/NfsTlunHkW
Also, you probably don't want to be returning a pointer to a slice in MapToList. Just return the slice itself. A slice contains a reference to the underlying array.
I've always found the package.New() syntax in go rather awkward to work with.
The suggestion is that if a package holds only a single type, using package.New() to create an instance; if multiple types exist, using package.NewBlah().
http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#package-names
However, this approach falls down if you if you have an existing package with a New() api, adding a new external type to the package breaks the api, because you must now rename this NewFoo(). Now you have to go and change anything that uses New(), which is deeply irritating.
...and I'm just discontent with the aesthetic of writing this:
import "other"
import "bar"
import "foo"
o := other.New() // <-- Weird, what type am I getting? No idea.
x := bar.New()
y := foo.NewFoo() // <-- Awkward, makes constructor naming look inconsistent
z := foo.NewBar()
So, recently I've been using this pattern instead:
x := foo.Foo{}.New() // <-- Immediately obvious I'm getting a Foo
y := foo.Bar{}.New() // <-- Only an additional 3 characters on NewBar{}
o := other.Foo{}.New() // <-- Consistent across all packages, no breakage on update
Where the module is defined something like this:
package foo
type Foo struct {
x int
}
func (s Foo) New() *Foo {
// Normal init stuff here
return &s // <-- Edit: notice the single instance is returned
}
type Bar struct {
}
func (Bar) New() *Bar {
return &Bar{} // <-- Edit: Bad, results in double alloc. Not like this.
}
Godoc seems to work fine with it, and it seems more obvious and consistent to me, without additional verbosity.
So, question: Is there any tangible downside to this?
Yes, it has a downside. This approach may generate unnecessary garbage - depending on how good the optimization of a specific Go compiler implementation is.
It's not terribly idiomatic and may if done badly create excess garbage as you note. Essentially you are just creating an Init method for your object. I don't use a lot of constructors myself tending to prefer having valid zero values for my objects and only using a constructor if that doesn't hold true.
In your case I think I'd just stop calling the method new and instead call it Init or Setup to better reflect what it's doing. That would avoid giving people the wrong idea about what it's doing.
Edit:
I should have been more detailed here. Calling the method Init or Setup and then using it on a Zero Value would better reflect what is going on to the consumer. eg
f := &foo{}
f.Init()
This avoids the excess garbage and gives you an initializer method as you describe.