I was reading about Collections, when this question stuck me.
Following is the code I wrote to test my doubt.
public static void main(String[] args) {
TreeMap<Integer, String> tree = new TreeMap<Integer, String>();
tree.put(1, "1");
tree.put(2, "2");
Set<Integer> set = tree.keySet();
System.out.println(set instanceof Set);
System.out.println(set instanceof HashSet);
}
Result :
true
false
Above code says that my set object is a instance of Set. but Set is an Interface how can it be instantiated. I'm confused. :(
Set is an interface, so no, you cannot directly instantiate it. Interfaces would be pretty useless if you couldn't have an instance of one, though! The instance returned by tree.keySet() is some concrete implementation of the Set interface.
Let's get super-specific, and look at the TreeMap#keySet() source code:
public Set<K> keySet() {
return navigableKeySet();
}
Okay, that doesn't tell us much. We need to drill down:
public NavigableSet<K> navigableKeySet() {
KeySet<K> nks = navigableKeySet;
return (nks != null) ? nks : (navigableKeySet = new KeySet(this));
}
So the concrete type returned is a KeySet! There's your implementation of the Set interface. http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/TreeMap.java.html#1021
Which explains this:
System.out.println(set instanceof Set); // prints true
System.out.println(set instanceof HashSet); // prints false
Set is an interface; HashSet is an implementation of that interface. foo instanceof Set will be true for every instance foo of any Set implementation. We already established that the concrete type of the object returned by TreeMap#keySet() is a KeySet, not a HashSet, so that explains why set instanceof HashSet is false – because set is a KeySet, so it cannot be a HashSet!
If that still doesn't make sense to you, read up on instanceof:
The instanceof operator compares an object to a specified type. You can use it to test if an object is an instance of a class, an instance of a subclass, or an instance of a class that implements a particular interface.
Related
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
}
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) {
}
I wanted to implement a generic class to use for caching results from a REST API in a local MongoDB-instance. For this to work, I need to deserialize a collection I get from JerseyClient:
Response response = this.source.request().get();
List<T> list = response.readEntity( new GenericType<List<T>>() {} );
// ... do stuff with the list
Let's say I'm using this piece of code in a context of T relating to a class Foo. The really weird thing is, after the readEntity call, list is not a List<Foo>, instead is a List<LinkedHashMap>. How is that even possible, when I've clearly declared the Generic T to be Foo?
What do I have to do to get a proper List<T>, i.e. List<Foo> instead?
Note: If I remove the generic, and use
List<Foo> list = response.readEntity( new GenericType<List<Foo>>() {} );
directly instead, it works fine, but I really need that generic to be there!
Java's most popular excuse for Generics: Type Erasure
If you can pass your class type as Class<T> clazz, then you can use this:
GenericType<List<T>> genericType = new GenericType<>(new ParameterizedType() {
public Type[] getActualTypeArguments() {
return new Type[]{clazz};
}
public Type getRawType() {
return List.class;
}
public Type getOwnerType() {
return null;
}
});
response.readEntity(genericType);
You can use
import sun.reflect.generics.reflectiveObjects.ParameterizedTypeImpl;
import javax.ws.rs.core.GenericType;
GenericType<List<T>> genericType = new GenericType<>(
ParameterizedTypeImpl.make( List.class, new Type[]{classType}, null));
If not, is there anything like this on the horizon?
This is the one feature of JavaScript, Ruby, and Perl that I can't live without. I know you can fake it with a hash member, but I want to be able to create (arbitrary) "first class" members from a parser.
Currently there's nothing that can set a field that doesn't yet exist. The mirror API can be used to set fields that already exist, and may eventually be extended to support defining new fields dynamically.
You can also use the "noSuchMethod" method on a class to intercept setter / getter, and store the received value in a map.
For example (I can't remember the syntax exactly...):
class Foo {
var _dynamicProperties = new Map<String,Object>();
noSuchMethod(String function_name, List args) {
if (args.length == 0 && function_name.startsWith("get:")) {
// Synthetic getter
var property = function_name.replaceFirst("get:", "");
if (_dynamicProperties.containsKey(property)) {
return _dynamicProperties[property];
}
}
else if (args.length == 1 && function_name.startsWith("set:")) {
// Synthetic setter
var property = function_name.replaceFirst("set:", "");
// If the property doesn't exist, it will only be added
_dynamicProperties[property] = args[0];
return _dynamicProperties[property];
}
super.noSuchMethod(function_name, args)
}
}
And then you can use this in your code as follows:
var foo = new Foo();
foo.bar = "Hello, World!";
print(foo.bar);
Of course, this can lead to typos that will not be checked by the type checker, e.g.:
foo.bar = "Hello";
foo.baz = "Hello, World!"; // Typo, meant to update foo.bar.
There are ways you have type-checker validation by using redirecting factory constructors and an implied interface, but then it starts to get complicated.
Side note: This is what JsonObject uses to convert a JSON map to a class type syntax.
I am using Entity Framework 4.0 and trying to use the "Contains" function of one the object sets in my context object. to do so i coded a Comparer class:
public class RatingInfoComparer : IEqualityComparer<RatingInfo>
{
public bool Equals(RatingInfo x, RatingInfo y)
{
var a = new {x.PlugInID,x.RatingInfoUserIP};
var b = new {y.PlugInID,y.RatingInfoUserIP};
if(a.PlugInID == b.PlugInID && a.RatingInfoUserIP.Equals(b.RatingInfoUserIP))
return true;
else
return false;
}
public int GetHashCode(RatingInfo obj)
{
var a = new { obj.PlugInID, obj.RatingInfoUserIP };
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(obj, null))
return 0;
return a.GetHashCode();
}
}
when i try to use the comparer with this code:
public void SaveRatingInfo2(int plugInId, string userInfo)
{
RatingInfo ri = new RatingInfo()
{
PlugInID = plugInId,
RatingInfoUser = userInfo,
RatingInfoUserIP = "192.168.1.100"
};
//This is where i get the execption
if (!context.RatingInfoes.Contains<RatingInfo>(ri, new RatingInfoComparer()))
{
//my Entity Framework context object
context.RatingInfoes.AddObject(ri);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
i get an execption:
"LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Boolean Contains[RatingInfo](System.Linq.IQueryable1[OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo], OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo,
System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer1[OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo])' method, and his method cannot be translated into a store expression."
Since i am not proficient with linQ and Entity Framework i might be making a mistake with my use of the "var" either in the "GetHashCode" function or in general.
If my mistake is clear to you do tell me :) it does not stop my project! but it is essential for me to understand why a simple comparer doesnt work.
Thanks
Aaron
LINQ to Entities works by converting an expression tree into queries against an object model through the IQueryable interface. This means than you can only put things into the expression tree which LINQ to Entities understands.
It doesn't understand the Contains method you are using, so it throws the exception you see. Here is a list of methods which it understands.
Under the Set Methods section header, it lists Contains using an item as supported, but it lists Contains with an IEqualityComparer as not supported. This is presumably because it would have to be able to work out how to convert your IEqualityComparer into a query against the object model, which would be difficult. You might be able to do what you want using multiple Where clauses, see which ones are supported further up the document.