I am using the XMLUnit in JUnit to compare the results of tests. I have a problem wherein there is an Element in my XML which gets the CURRENT TIMESTAMP as the tests run and when compared with the expected output, the results will never match.
To overcome this, I read about using org.xmlunit.diff.NodeFilters, but do not have any examples on how to implement this. The code snippet I have is as below,
final org.xmlunit.diff.Diff documentDiff = DiffBuilder
.compare(sourcExp)
.withTest(sourceActual)
.ignoreComments()
.ignoreWhitespace()
//.withNodeFilter(Node.ELEMENT_NODE)
.build();
return documentDiff.hasDifferences();
My problem is, how do I implement the NodeFilter? What parameter should be passed and should that be passed? There are no samples on this. The NodeFilter method gets Predicate<Node> as the IN parameter. What does Predicate<Node> mean?
Predicate is a functional interface with a single test method that - in the case of NodeFilter receives a DOM Node as argument and returns a boolean. javadoc of Predicate
An implementation of Predicate<Node> can be used to filter nodes for the difference engine and only those Nodes for which the Predicate returns true will be compared. javadoc of setNodeFilter, User-Guide
Assuming your element containing the timestamp was called timestamp you'd use something like
.withNodeFilter(new Predicate<Node>() {
#Override
public boolean test(Node n) {
return !(n instanceof Element &&
"timestamp".equals(Nodes.getQName(n).getLocalPart()));
}
})
or using lambdas
.withNodeFilter(n -> !(n instanceof Element &&
"timestamp".equals(Nodes.getQName(n).getLocalPart())))
This uses XMLUnit's org.xmlunit.util.Nodes to get the element name more easily.
The below code worked for me,
public final class IgnoreNamedElementsDifferenceListener implements
DifferenceListener {
private Set<String> blackList = new HashSet<String>();
public IgnoreNamedElementsDifferenceListener(String... elementNames) {
for (String name : elementNames) {
blackList.add(name);
}
}
public int differenceFound(Difference difference) {
if (difference.getId() == DifferenceConstants.TEXT_VALUE_ID) {
if (blackList.contains(difference.getControlNodeDetail().getNode()
.getParentNode().getNodeName())) {
return DifferenceListener.RETURN_IGNORE_DIFFERENCE_NODES_IDENTICAL;
}
}
return DifferenceListener.RETURN_ACCEPT_DIFFERENCE;
}
public void skippedComparison(Node node, Node node1) {
}
Related
I am migrating my prototype from a listener to a visitor pattern. In the prototype, I have a grammar fragment like this:
thingList: thing+ ;
thing
: A aSpec # aRule
| B bSpec # bRule
;
Moving to a visitor pattern, I am not sure how I write visitThingList. Every visitor returns a specializes subclass of "Node", and I would love somehow when to be able to write something like this, say a "thingList" cares about the first thing in the list some how ...
visitThingList(cx: ThingListContext): ast.ThingList {
...
const firstThing = super.visit(cx.thing(0));
The problem with this is in typing. Each visit returns a specialized type which is a subclass of ast.Node. Because I am using super.visit, the return value will be the base class
of my node tree. However, I know because I am looking at the grammar
and because I wrote both vistARule and visitBRule that the result of the visit will be of type ast.Thing.
So we make visitThingList express it's expectation with cast ...
visitThingList(cx: ThingListContext): ast.ThingList {
const firstThing = super.visit(cx.thing(0));
if (!firstThing instanceof ast.Thing) {
throw "no matching visitor for thing";
}
// firstThing is now known to be of type ast.Thing
...
In much of my translator, type problems with ast Nodes are a compile time issue, I fix them in my editor. In this case, I am producing a more fragile walk, which will only reveal the fragility at runtime and then only with certain inputs.
I think I could change my grammar, to make it possible to encode the
type expectations of vistThingList() by creating a vistThing() entry point
thingList: thing+ ;
thing: aRule | bRule;
aRule: A aSpec;
bRule: B bSpec;
With vistThing() typed to match the expectation:
visitThing(cx: ThingContext): ast.Thing { }
visitThingList(cx: ThingListContext) {
const firstThing: ast.Thing = this.visitThing(cx.thing(0));
Now visitThingList can call this.visitThing() and the type enforcement of making sure all rules that a thing matches return ast.Thing belongs to visitThing(). If I do create a new rule for thing, the compiler will force me to change the return type of visitThing() and if I make it return something which is NOT a thing, visitThingList() will show type errors.
This also seems wrong though, because I don't feel like I should have to change my grammar in order to visit it.
I am new to ANTLR and wondering if there is a better pattern or approach to this.
When I was using the listener pattern, I wrote something like:
enterThing(cx: ThingContext) { }
enterARule(cx : ARuleContext) { }
enterBRule(cx : BRuleContext) { }
Not quite: for a labeled rule like thing, the listener will not contain enterThing(...) and exitThing(...) methods. Only the enter... and exit... methods for the labels aSpec and bSpec will be created.
How would I write the visitor walk without changing the grammar?
I don't understand why you need to change the grammar. When you keep the grammar like you mentioned:
thingList: thing+ ;
thing
: A aSpec # aRule
| B bSpec # bRule
;
then the following visitor could be used (again, there is no visitThing(...) method!):
public class TestVisitor extends TBaseVisitor<Object> {
#Override
public Object visitThingList(TParser.ThingListContext ctx) {
...
}
#Override
public Object visitARule(TParser.ARuleContext ctx) {
...
}
#Override
public Object visitBRule(TParser.BRuleContext ctx) {
...
}
#Override
public Object visitASpec(TParser.ASpecContext ctx) {
...
}
#Override
public Object visitBSpec(TParser.BSpecContext ctx) {
...
}
}
EDIT
I do not know how, as i iterate over that, to call the correct visitor for each element
You don't need to know. You can simply call the visitor's (super) visit(...) method and the correct method will be invoked:
class TestVisitor extends TBaseVisitor<Object> {
#Override
public Object visitThingList(TParser.ThingListContext ctx) {
for (TParser.ThingContext child : ctx.thing()) {
super.visit(child);
}
return null;
}
...
}
And you don't even need to implement all methods. The ones you don't implement, will have a default visitChildren(ctx) in them, causing (as the name suggests) all child nodes under them being traversed.
In your case, the following visitor will already cause the visitASpec and visitBSpec being invoked:
class TestVisitor extends TBaseVisitor<Object> {
#Override
public Object visitASpec(TParser.ASpecContext ctx) {
System.out.println("visitASpec");
return null;
}
#Override
public Object visitBSpec(TParser.BSpecContext ctx) {
System.out.println("visitBSpec");
return null;
}
}
You can test this (in Java) like this:
String source = "... your input here ...";
TLexer lexer = new TLexer(CharStreams.fromString(source));
TParser parser = new TParser(new CommonTokenStream(lexer));
TestVisitor visitor = new TestVisitor();
visitor.visit(parser.thingList());
I'm using Kotlin reflection to check if attributes that have a certain annotation are null.
Given the following example:
data class DataClass(
#SomeRandomAnnotation
val otherAnnotated: String?,
val inner: InnerClass
)
data class AnotherDataClass(
#SomeRandomAnnotation
val annotatedProperty: String?,
val dataClass: DataClass
) {
fun checkCreditAnalysisConstrain() {
print(checkConstrain(this))
}
}
And the function that checks it:
fun checkConstrain(parentClass: Any): List<String> {
val filter = parentClass::class.memberProperties.filter {
if (memberIsDataClass(it)) checkConstrain(getMemberPropertyInstance(parentClass, it))
hasAnnotation(it) && propertyIsNull(it, parentClass)
}
return filter.map { formatResult(parentClass, it) }
}
The idea is that the function is going to iterate through the attributes of my classes checking if they have the annotation and checking if the value is null.
If the property is a data class, the code evaluates the properties of the childs, recursively.
After that, I map the results, transforming the KProperty's into a simple String that is human readable, containing the class name and the attribute name.
The problem is that the above code does not work as expected. The properties returned are only the properties from the first-level class.
If, instead of doing a filter, I just run a forEach and print the result, I get the expected attributes. So I'm pretty sure it's related to the recurring inside a filter.
Do you see any way of doing this in a more functional way? I'm just concerned I won't need a "temp" list and add values to the list and reset it afterwards.
Your function recursively calls itself, but does nothing with the returned list of that recursive call. That's why you only get results for the top-level class.
Also, in my opinion, you shouldn't rely on side effects happening from your filter call. It probably works, but the function's documentation does not provide a guarantee that it will be called exactly once per item in the collection. So there should be a separate for-loop to do the recursive calls, and the result should be added onto existing results.
fun checkConstrain(parent: Any): List<String> {
val memberProperties = parent::class.memberProperties
var result = memberProperties
.filter { hasAnnotation(it) && propertyIsNull(it, parent) }
.map { formatResult(parent, it) }
memberProperties.filter { memberIsDataClass(it) }
.mapNotNull { getMemberPropertyInstance(parent, it) }
.forEach { result += checkConstrain(it) }
return result
}
You didn't provide code for several of the functions you used. This is what I used for them:
val KProperty<*>.returnTypeClass get() = this.returnType.classifier as? KClass<*>
fun <T> memberIsDataClass(member: KProperty<T>) = member.returnTypeClass?.isData == true
fun <T> getMemberPropertyInstance(parent: Any, property: KProperty<T>) = property.getter.call(parent)
fun <T> hasAnnotation(property: KProperty<T>) = property.annotations.firstOrNull { it.annotationClass == SomeRandomAnnotation::class } != null
fun <T> propertyIsNull(property: KProperty<T>, parent: Any) = getMemberPropertyInstance(parent, property) == null
fun formatResult(parent: Any, property: KProperty<*>) = "$parent's property(${property.name}) is annotated with SomeRandomAnnotation and is null."
Given a Flux or a Mono from project reactor is a there a way to get the Flux or Mono to print out what the operator chain looks like. For example given the code below.
Fulx flux = Flux.just("a","b","c")
.map( v -> v.toUpperCase())
.log();
Is there some way to get the flux to print out a list of all the operators that are chained inside in the processing pipeline? Some nice ascii formatted text or a marble diagram?
printTheFlux(flux) should make a nice printout that show the structure of all the operators from the example above. I am not expecting to produce the code in the lambda's just a way to see what operators are chained together.
There is partial building blocks for doing this with the Scannable interface:
public String textRepresentation(Flux<?> flux) {
Scannable sc = Scannable.from(flux);
//scan the last operator in the chain and ask if it knows its parents
List<String> names = sc.parents().map(Scannable::operatorName)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
//as it traverses the chain from bottom to top, we need to reverse the order
Collections.reverse(names);
//need to also add the last operator
names.add(sc.operatorName());
return names.toString();
}
#Test
public void textRepresentationTest() {
Flux flux = Flux.just("a","b","c")
.map( v -> v.toUpperCase())
.log();
System.out.println(textRepresentation(flux));
}
Prints
[map, log]
Not all operators fully support it though (as you can see, the just source doesn't for instance).
Nice suggestion!
However, waiting for it, we can just have something like :
Disposable flux = Flux.just("a", "b", "c")
.map(String::toUpperCase)
.doOnNext(FluxUtil::print)
.subscribe();
Where FluxUtil::print is just a static method that you can write with different ways.
Here is the complete code works for me:
public class FluxUtil {
private static String s = "";
public static void main(String[] args) {
Disposable flux = Flux.just("a", "b", "c")
.map(String::toUpperCase)
.doOnNext(FluxUtil::print)
.subscribe();
}
private static Object print(Object o) {
s = !s.isEmpty() ? s.concat("->") : s;
s = s.concat(o.toString());
System.out.println(s);
return o;
}
}
I need to write a simple method that receives a parameter (e.g. a string) and does smth. Usually I'd end up with two tests. The first one would be a guard clause. The second would validate the expected behavior (for simplicity, the method shouldn't fail):
[Fact]
public void DoSmth_WithNull_Throws()
{
var sut = new Sut();
Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>(() =>
sut.DoSmth(null));
}
[Fact]
public void DoSmth_WithValidString_DoesNotThrow()
{
var s = "123";
var sut = new Sut();
sut.DoSmth(s); // does not throw
}
public class Sut
{
public void DoSmth(string s)
{
if (s == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
// do smth important here
}
}
When I try to utilize the FsCheck [Property] attribute to generate random data, null and numerous other random values are passed to the test which at some point causes NRE:
[Property]
public void DoSmth_WithValidString_DoesNotThrow(string s)
{
var sut = new Sut();
sut.DoSmth(s); // throws ArgumentNullException after 'x' tests
}
I realize that this is the entire idea of FsCheck to generate numerous random data to cover different cases which is definitely great.
Is there any elegant way to configure the [Property] attribute to exclude undesired values? (In this particular test that's null).
FsCheck has some built-in types that can be used to signal specific behaviour, like, for example, that reference type values shouldn't be null. One of these is NonNull<'a>. If you ask for one of these, instead of asking for a raw string, you'll get no nulls.
In F#, you'd be able to destructure it as a function argument:
[<Property>]
let DoSmth_WithValidString_DoesNotThrow (NonNull s) = // s is already a string here...
let sut = Sut ()
sut.DoSmth s // Use your favourite assertion library here...
}
I think that in C#, it ought to look something like this, but I haven't tried:
[Property]
public void DoSmth_WithValidString_DoesNotThrow(NonNull<string> s)
{
var sut = new Sut();
sut.DoSmth(s.Get); // throws ArgumentNullException after 'x' tests
}
The GDK docs indicate that Collection.sort(Comparator comparator) does not change the collection it is called on, but the code below indicates otherwise. Is this a bug in the implementation, error in the docs, or a misunderstanding on my part?
class ISO3LangComparator implements Comparator<Locale> {
int compare(Locale locale1, Locale locale2) {
locale1.ISO3Language <=> locale2.ISO3Language
}
}
List<Locale> locales = [Locale.FRENCH, Locale.ENGLISH]
def sortedLocales = locales.sort(new ISO3LangComparator())
// This assertion fails
assert locales[0] == frenchLocale
the documentation states:
If the Collection is a List, it is
sorted in place and returned.
Otherwise, the elements are first
placed into a new list which is then
sorted and returned - leaving the
original Collection unchanged.
which is reflected in the implementation of the sort() method
public static <T> List<T> sort(Collection<T> self, Comparator<T> comparator) {
List<T> list = asList(self);
Collections.sort(list, comparator);
return list;
}
the asList method looks whether the given collection is an instanceof java.util.List. If yes, it returns the reference, if not it returns a new java.util.ArrayList instance.
since you are using the [] syntax you are implicitly working with an instance of java.util.List.