I have a code base with mixed Java and Groovy code. For iteration in the Groovy code, we tend to use closures:
String[] strings = ["First", "Second", "Third"]
strings.each { string ->
println string
}
When I debug this in IntelliJ IDEA (v. 11) by stepping one row at a time, the code executing in strings.each() (that is println string) is stepped over. I can put a breakpoint at the println row, and I will be able to debug it, but it is a little workaround that would be nice to avoid.
Is there a way to configure intelliJ to not step over Groovy closures? There are no applicable options in File->Settings->Debugger->Groovy.
Edit:
To clarify what I expect intelliJ to do:
Say I have a Java style iteration like this:
for (String string : strings) {
println string
}
If I use "Step over", the debugger steps into the iteration with no problems. I can the continue "stepping over" and still be in the loop until there are no more objects to iterate over. This is what I would expect for closures like above to.
It might not be a problem in a case with one or two closures where you manually have to set breakpoints. But if there are many, it would be really neat to "automatically" step into them.
I fully agree that there needs to be better Closure debugging support in IntelliJ, since what you are asking to do is not always as straightforward as it should be without jumping through some hoops.
Like you've found, you can put a breakpoint on the println row, which will usually let you break within the Closure (but not always). Once you have a breakpoint, IntelliJ has a pretty powerful Conditional Breakpoint system, which will let you have much better control over when to break.
Another route I've found useful from time to time is to take everything in these closures and toss it into a method that the closure calls, instead of having the code in the closure directly. This doesn't change the runtime behavior too much, and I've found that it gives me much more control over things. It also usually is an indication that I need to refactor as well, since it's already too painful to dig into that code.
Related
Problem
My web front-end calls back-end queries with complex arguments. During development, to avoid time-consuming manual replication of those arguments, I want to capture their values in Vars, which can be used in REPL.
Research
This article shows that inline def is a suitable solution, but I couldn't make it work. After a call from the front-end happened, the Var remained unbound.
I launched the backend with REPL through VS Code + Calva, with the following code:
(defn get-analytics-by-category [params]
(def params params)
...)
And here's the evaluation of the Var in the REPL:
#object[clojure.lang.Var$Unbound 0x1298f89e "Unbound: #'urbest.db.queries/params"]
Question
Why the code above didn't bound value of the argument to the Var? Is there another solution?
The best way that I found is to use scope-capture library. It captures all the local variables with addition of 1 line in a function, and then with another 1-liner you can define all those variables as global, which allows you to evaluate in REPL any sub-expression in the function using runtime values.
If you ever spent a lot of time reproducing complex runtime values, I strongly recommend watching their 8-min demo.
My issue with inline-def was likely caused by reloading namespace after the Var was bound to a value. After restarting VS Code and carefully doing everything again, the issue went away.
Another way to look at the runtime is to use a debugger.
It is more flexible than scope-capture, but requires a bit more work to make variables available outside an execution.
VS Code's Calva extension comes with one, there's also Emacs packages.
I am wondering what difference it makes to the debugger (Intellij IDEA + Scala plug-in) when I debug Scala code and not Java code. To my understanding, a debugger is tightly coupled with the language i.e. a Java debugger can not handle Scala code but apparently the JVM is the center of attention here meaning as long as it is byte-code, any debugger would do. right ?
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The problem was to give an example of how a byte-code debugger may be limiting for Scala. Assume a break point is reached and I don't want to go to the next line but I want the debugger to evaluate an Scala expression in the context of the application (e.g. I like to call an operator method from a singleton object). The debugger is stuck because it can not understand Scala. I have to do the transformation myself and input the resulting Java to the debugger.
The problem is that only "breakpoint stuff" could be handled in byte-code level. What if you want to put an expression under watch? Debugger has to understand Scala to evaluate the watched expression,right? This time I'm sure I'm right. Vengeance is mine, Saith the Lord ;-)
Short answer your assumptions are wrong.
The reason is the debugger does not care what language your debugging. It stops at breakpoints which in turn include the line of a particular source file. Note that the source file is merely text for you to read - the debugger never scans the source files. If you change the spot where source files are to another directory with a text file in the right directory w/ the right filename as a breakpoint that has been set, the debugger will happily show it when the breakpoint happens. Everytime you set a breakpoint your ide is telling the debugger hey scan this class for any byte code on this line and stop when you hit it. This of course does not work if your ide is attempting to compile the same text file into a class file - however it will work if you create fake text files as source for a jar file and do the source file mapping thing.
If one thinks about it, writing a simple template and compiling it while support debugging is not that difficult. Simply use asm to create all the print statements and tell asm this print statement is from the template file on this line. After that you can add more clever stuff while keeping things debuggable.
I'm new to funcctional programming and have some questions regarding coding style and debugging.
I'm under the impression that one should avoid storing results from funcction calls in a temp variable and then return that variable
e.g.
let someFunc foo =
let result = match foo with
| x -> ...
| y -> ...
result
And instead do it like this (I might be way off?):
let someFunc foo =
match foo with
| x -> ...
| y -> ...
Which works fine from a functionallity perspective, but it makes it way harder to debug.
I have no way to examine the result if the right hand side of -> does some funky stuff.
So how should I deal with this kind of scenarios?
To inspect the middle of a pipeline, I suggest the following workaround:
Put this code at some place:
[<AutoOpen>]
module AutoOpenModule
#if DEBUG
let (|>) value func =
let result = func value
result
#endif
Enable "Step Into Properties and Operators in Managed Code":
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc667388(v=vs.100).aspx
Now you should be able to step into the pipeline operator.
Either way is acceptable, as you are simply binding to local immutable variable.
There is a catch though. If you using it as part of a recursive loop using tail calls, the one using the temp variable will eliminate the tail call, and hence you will have an increase in stack space.
Being able to see the return value of a function in VS is a long-standing request. Other intermediate expression values too; in F# for example, you often want to inspect the middle of a pipeline, which is hard to do. In the sense that functional programming means "fewer named variables and locals" and "larger expressions", this does have a negative impact on the current generation of debuggers. (On the other hand, with things like less mutability and higher abstraction, hopefully you spend less time in the debugger.)
There are still many ways the debuggers of the future can be improved...
See also
Do some Functional programming constructs reduce Debuggability?
I wouldn't shoot you if you used the temp, but I also wouldn't cramp my style on the off chance that I needed to watch something under debug.
Besides, debugging this sort of thing is much easier with Visual Studio 2010's visual debugger, as you can use breakpoints inside each possible match expression. There is also quick watch and other great features.
For a list of the latest features in the Visual Studio debugger:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01xdt7cs.aspx
This is a coding style questions:-
Here is the case
Dim obj1 as new ClassA
' Some lines of code which does not uses obj1
Something.Pass(obj1) ' Only line we are using obj1
Or should we directly initiaize the object when passing it as an argument?
Something.new(new ClassA())
If you're only using the object in that method call, it's probably better to just pass in "new ClassA()" directly into the call. This way, you won't have an extra variable lying around, that someone might mistakenly try to use in the future.
However, for readability, and debugging it's often useful to create the temporary object and pass it in. This way, you can inspect the variable in the debugger before it gets passed into the method.
Your question asks "should we create objects"; both your examples create an object.
There is not logically any difference at all between the two examples. Giving a name to an object allows it to be referred to in more than one place. If you aren't doing that, it's much clearer to not give it a name, so someone maintaining the code can instantly see that the object is only passed to one other method.
Generally speaking, I would say no, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, but it does sound like there may be some blurring of responsibilities between your calling function, the called function, and the temporary object. Perhaps a bit of refactoring is in order.
I personally prefer things to be consistent, and to make my life easier (what I consider making my life easier may not be what you consider making your life easier... so do with this advice what you will).
If you have something like this:
o = new Foo();
i = 7
bar(o, i, new Car());
then you have an inconsistency (two parameters are variables, the other is created on the fly). To be consistent you would either:
always pass things as variables
always pass things created on the fly
only one of those will work (the first one!).
There are also practical aspects to it as well: making a variable makes debugging easier.
Here are some examples:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
foo(nextLine());
}
If you want to display the next line for debugging you now need to change it to:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
line = nextLine();
display(line);
foo(line);
}
It would be easier (and safer) to have made the variable up front. It is safer because you are less likely to accidentally call nextLine() twice (by forgetting to take it out of the foo call).
You can also view the value of "line" in a debugger without having to go into the "foo" method.
Another one that can happen is this:
foo(b.c.d()); // in Java you get a NullPointerException on this line...
was "b" or "c" the thing that was null? No idea.
Bar b;
Car c;
int d;
b = ...;
c = b.c; // NullPointException here - you know b was null
d = c.d(); // NullPointException here - you know c was null
foo(d); // can view d in the debugger without having to go into foo.
Some debuggers will let you highlight "d()" and see what it outputs, but that is dangerous if "d()" has side effects as the debugger will wind up calling "d()" each time you get the value via the debugger).
The way I code for this does make it more verbose (like this answer :-) but it also makes my life easier if things are not working as expected - I spend far less time wondering what went wrong and I am also able to fix bugs much faster than before I adopted this way of doing things.
To me the most important thing when programming is to be consistent. If you are consistent then the code is much easier to get through because you are not constantly having to figure out what is going on, and your eyes get drawn to any "oddities" in the code.
Most programmers will have had the experience of debugging/fixing someone else's code. Sometimes that "someone else's code" is so obfuscated it's bad enough trying to understand what it's doing.
What's the worst (most obfuscated) code you've had to debug/fix?
If you didn't throw it away and recode it from scratch, well why didn't you?
PHP OSCommerce is enough to say, it is obfuscated code...
a Java class
only static methods that manipulates DOM
8000 LOCs
long chain of methods that return null on "error": a.b().c().d().e()
very long methods (400/500 LOC each)
nested if, while, like:
if (...) {
for (...) {
if (...) {
if (...) {
while (...) {
if (...) {
cut-and-paste oriented programming
no exceptions, all exceptions are catched and "handled" using printStackTrace()
no unit tests
no documentation
I was tempted to throw away and recode... but, after 3 days of hard debugging,
I've added the magic if :-)
Spaghetti code PHP CMS system.
by default, programmers think someone else's code is obfuscated.
The worse I probably had to do was interpreting what variables i1, i2 j, k, t were in a simple method and they were not counters in 'for' loops.
In all other circumstances I guess the problem area was difficult which made the code look difficult.
I found this line in our codebase today and thought it was a nice example of sneaky obfuscation:
if (MULTICLICK_ENABLED.equals(propService.getProperty(PropertyNames.MULTICLICK_ENABLED))) {} else {
return false;
}
Just making sure I read the whole line. NO SKIMREADING.
When working on a GWT project, I would reach parts of GWT-compiled obfuscated JS code which wasn't mine.
Now good luck debugging real obfuscated code.
I can't remember the full code, but a single part of it remains burned into my memory as something I spend hours trying to understand:
do{
$tmp = shift unless shift;
$tmp;
}while($tmp);
I couldn't understand it at first, it looks so useless, then I printed out #_ for a list of arguments, a series of alternating boolean and function names, the code was used in conjunction with a library detection module that changed behaviour if a function was broken, but the code was so badly documented and made of things like that which made no sense without a complete understanding of the full code I gave up and rewrote the whole thing.
UPDATE from DVK:
And, lest someone claims this was because Perl is unreadable as opposed to coder being a golf master instead of good software developer, here's the same code in a slightly less obfuscated form (the really correct code wouldn't even HAVE alternating sub names and booleans in the first place :)
# This subroutine take a list of alternating true/false flags
# and subroutine names; and executes the named subroutines for which flag is true.
# I am also weird, otherwise I'd have simply have passed list of subroutines to execute :)
my #flags_and_sub_names_list = #_;
while ( #flags_and_sub_names_list ) {
my $flag = shift #flags_and_sub_names_list;
my $subName = shift #flags_and_sub_names_list;
next unless $flag && $subName;
&{ $subName }; # Call the named subroutine
}
I've had a case of a 300lines function performing input sanitization which missed a certain corner case. It was parsing certain situations manually using IndexOf and Substring plus a lot of inlined variables and constants (looks like the original coder didn't know anything about good practices), and no comment was provided. Throwing it away wasn't feasible due to time constraints and the fact that I didn't have the specification required so rewriting it would've meant understanding the original, but after understanding it fixing it was just quicker. I also added lots of comments, so whoever shall come after me won't feel the same pain taking a look at it...
The Perl statement:
select((select(s),$|=1)[0])
which, at the suggestion of the original author (Randal Schwartz himself, who said he disliked it but nothing else was available at the time), was replaced with something a little more understandable:
IO::Handle->autoflush
Beyond that one-liner, some of the Java JDBC libraries from IBM are obfuscated and all variables and functions are either combinations of the letter 'l' and '1' or single/double characters - very hard to track anything down until you get them all renamed. Needed to do this to track down why they worked fine in IBM's JRE but not Sun's.
If you're talking about HLL codes, once I was updating project written by a chinese and all comments were chinese (stored in ansii) and it was a horror to understand some code fragments, if you're talking about low level code there were MANY of them (obfuscated, mutated, vm-ed...).
I once had to reverse engineer a Java 1.1 framework that:
Extended event-driven SAX parser classes for every class, even those that didn't parse XML (the overridden methods were simply invoked ad hoc by other code)
Custom runtime exceptions were thrown in lieu of method invocations wherever possible. As a result, most of the business logic landed in a nested series of catch blocks.
If I had to guess, it was probably someone's "smart" idea that method invocations were expensive in Java 1.1, so throwing exceptions for non-exceptional flow control was somehow considered an optimization.
Went through about three bottles of eye drops.
I once found a time bomb that had been intentionally obfuscated.
When I had finally decoded what it was doing I mentioned it to the manager who said they knew about the time bomb but had left it in place because it was so ineffective and was interwoven with other code.
The time bomb was (presumably) supposed to go off after a certain date.
Instead, it had a bug in it so it only activated if someone was working after lunchtime on Dec 31st.
It had taken three years for that circumstance to occur since the guy who wrote the time bomb left the company.