We Keep Coding

Updating an object with builder pattern

I recently found about this pattern and tried to implement it into my project. It does what it suppose to do. However, tried to find a nice solution to update it. Came up with one solution and I would like to know if it is "acceptable".
Only one difference which I did is I created another constructor inside Builder class which takes calling object as parameter:
public Builder (User user) {
this.userID = user.getUserID();
this.userName = user.getUserName();
...
//and so on
and in main method
creating an object:
User user = new User.Builder("mandatory params")
.email("some email")
.build();
and update:
user = new User.Builder(user).phoneNumber("my number").build();
Is this approach acceptable?

This is good if you want to create a new user with fields copied from another user, with some changes:
anotherUser = new User.Builder(user).phoneNumber("my number").build();
But if you are assigning the new object back to the user variable, it suggests that you are updating the existing user. To update, you are creating a whole new object and copying fields, which is very inefficient. You should use setters.

you should you setter's and getter's once you have the object empty or partially filled doesn't matter.
Also In my opinion it's better to use jackson objectMapper compare to builder pattern it automatically handles new parameters without adding extra line of code in the builder pattern and also it's more clean code.

How to create protobuf instances using java reflection?

Normally you create an protobuf class instance like this:
Bar.Builder bld = Bar.newBuilder();
bld.setXYZ(...
I have a usecase that uses the Java reflection to instantiate a protobuf class:
Class clsBar = Class.forName("com.xyz.Foo$Bar");
Object instance = clsBar.newInstance(); // error here!
Method mth = clsBar.getMethod(...);
The above code works fine with normal Java classes. But for a generated protobuf class "com.xyz.Foo$Bar", It gives me an NoSuchMethodException, as there isn't a default public constructor there.
Any suggestions on how to use Java refection to create protobuf instances? The question is for someone who's really good at protobuf internals. Thank!

I think you should go the full way: through the Builder class:
//get Bar class
Class barClass = Class.forName("com.xyz.Foo$Bar");
//instantiate Builder through newBuilder method
Method newBuilderMethod = barClass.getMethod("newBuilder");
Bar.Builder builder = (Bar.Builder) newBuilderMethod.invoke(null);
// ... set properties -- can be through reflection if necessary
//build:
Bar bar = builder.build();
Though I don't exactly see how reflection is of any use in this case, that would probably require a deeper understanding of the exact problem you are trying to solve.

Writing testable code when new object is being constructed using Mockito only

So I am writing a class which I want to follow the best practices and be testable.
I have a new object to be created inside it. So, I am following the factory pattern to achieve it.
public class Apple {
// factory object injected in class
private SeedFactory seedFactory;
// Method to be tested
public void myMethod(String property1, int property2, String depends) {
// Just to set the necessary parameter
seedFactory = new SeedFactory(property1, property2);
// Factory pattern intact. Instance generation depends on only one parameter
SeedFactory result = seedFactory.getInstance(depends);
}
}
EDIT: Adding code for factory as well.
public class SeedFactory{
String property1;
int property2;
SeedFactory(property1,property2){
this.property1 = property1;
this.property2 = property2;
}
SeedFactory getInstance(int depends){
if(depends == 1)
{ // do stuff }
else{ // do stuff and return instance }
Now, before I actually create the new object, I have to make sure that I set two properties for the new instance to be generated, which are needed to be present irrespective of the type of instance generated by the factory. depends is the actual parameter which tells the factory what instance to return.
Now, as far as testability of this code is concerned, I can user PowerMockito to mock the factory object using whenNew but using PowerMockito is not a choice. I have to make it testable without it.
Also, I have tried to encapsulate the new call within a one line function and then use spy. But I want to avoid using spy, since it is not considered a good practice, in context of where this code is being used as a whole.
So my question is, Is there any way, without using PowerMockito, to re-write this class so that it can be unit tested properly?
If the instance to be generated needed only one parameter, then it would have been trivial. However, I don't want to pass more than one parameter to getInstance().

SeedFactory is not Apple's dependancy but your method depends on SeedFactory which has "uses" relationship. So to define proper relation i would suggest you use "USES" relation as below:
public void myMethod(SeedFactory seedFactory, String depends){ // Method to be tested
Now you could mock SeedFactory and can unit test it appropriately.

I think you're doing something wrong.
If SeedFactory isn't an Apple's dependency but an internal concern, hence you don't need to mock a SeedFactory to test Apple. You should test the public API provided by Apple only.
If SeedFactory is an Apple's dependency, so it definitely should be injected.

Design Patterns, override a method without need to re compile / relink

We are building a product that needs to run on production environments. We need to modify some of the functionality of a existing library. The existing library has class's and methods, we need to override 1 or more methods so that the caller uses our overriden methods instead of the original library.
OriginalLibrary
package com.original.library ;
public class OriginalLibrary {
public int getValue() {
return 1 ;
}
public int getAnotherValue() {
return 1 ;
}
}
Original Client
public class MyClient {
private OriginalLibraryClass originalLibraryObject ;
public MyClient () {
originalLibraryObject = new OriginalLibraryClass() ;
System.out.println(originalLibraryObject.getValue()) ;
System.out.println(originalLibraryObject.getAnotherValue()) ;
}
}
Output
1
2
Now, I need to change getValue() to return 3, instead of 1
Needed Output
3
2
package com.original.library.improved ;
public class OriginalLibrary extends com.original.library.OriginalLibrary {
public int getValue() {
return 3 ;
}
public int getAnotherValue() {
return super.getAnotherValue() ;
}
}
If I do the above, I need to tell my Original Client to reorder and use my new com.original.library.improved jar file before com.original.library.
I am almost convinced that this is the most non intrusive way to launch my improved services over and above the OriginalLibrary. I would have preferred a solution where I need to tell the customer to just add my jar file, no need to recompile, relink your client code.
Similar (not same) questions on a google search
here
here

java assist is excellent library for bytecode manipulation. I have modified code below as per your sample code given, You have to explore javaassist more for your actual requirenment
CtClass etype = ClassPool.getDefault().get("com.original.library.OriginalLibrary");
// get method from class
CtMethod cm = etype.getDeclaredMethod("getValue");
// change the method bosy
cm.setBody("return 3;");
etype.rebuildClassFile();
// give the path where classes is placed, In my eclipse it is bin
etype.writeFile("bin");
OriginalLibrary originalLibraryObject;
originalLibraryObject = new OriginalLibrary();
System.out.println(originalLibraryObject.getValue());
System.out.println(originalLibraryObject.getAnotherValue());
Now output of getValue is 3 because I changed body of that method.

A couple of questions -
How is the client getting an instance of your library's class?
If they are using new OriginalLibrary(), then you're pretty much stuck with creating a new subclass of OriginalLibrary and then asking your client to use your new OriginalLibraryImproved class. This is a common problem encountered in projects and is one reason why a library should not allow its clients to instantiate its classes directly using the new operator.
If instead, your client is instantiating OriginalLibrary using a factory method provided by the library (say, OriginalLibrary.getInstance()), you may want to check if there are any hooks into the factory that allow you to change the object being returned.
Do you have full control of the source code of the original library?
If yes, then you definitely should (and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough) provide factory methods for any class in the library that is instantiable. Doing this allows you to change the actual object being returned without modifying the client (as long as the returned object's class is a subclass of the return value from the factory method).
If not, then I suggest you do the following.
Create a subclass of OriginalLibrary (say, OriginalLibraryImproved).
Create a Factory class named OriginalLibraryFactory that has a static method named getInstance(). Write code to return an instance of OriginalLibraryImproved from this method.
Ask your client to replace all occurrences of new OriginalLibrary() with OriginalLibraryFactory.getInstance(). Note that this approach will only involve adding an extra import for the factory class. The client will still refer to the returned instance using the same OriginalLibrary reference as before.
The advantage of this approach is that it gives you complete flexibility to change the implementation details of OriginalLibraryImproved without affecting the client in anyway. You could also swap OriginalLibararyImproved with a newer version like OriginalLibraryImprovedVer2 and the client will be oblivious to the fact that it is using a new class. You'll just have to make sure that OriginalLibraryImprovedVer2 subclasses OriginalLibrary.
An even more flexible approach is to use the Wrapper or Decorator pattern to avoid the pitfalls of inheritance. You can understand more about the Decorator pattern here.
In a nutshell, try to avoid forcing your clients to use new and try to avoid inheritance unless you have very compelling reasons.

What does `Client.findById(id)` mean?

Looking through the Play documentation for Java I noticed the following block of code:
public static Result show(Long id) {
Client client = Client.findById(id);
return ok(views.html.Client.show(client));
}
Source: http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.1.0/JavaRouting
I am having some trouble understanding the second line, my understanding of Java Object creation is a typical constructor looks like the following:
Person john = new Person();
What is the second line doing? Creating a Object called client from Class called Client, also what is Client? It doesn't appear to be a part of the Play Framework, certainly I cannot find anything in JavaDocs.
Thanks
Edit:
I found this to be a good point of reference for the answer (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/classvars.html)
Also I think the class Client comes from the following documentation (http://www.playframework.com/documentation/1.1.1/controllers) with Client being just a example model class, the new documentation probably needs updating to clear up this confusion.

Pretty clearly, the class Client has a static function of findById, which takes a Long and returns a Client. Static functions are functions that are defined without any access to object properties, and therefore can be accessed through the class name, rather than having to be accessed through an object. Most likely, the class has a static property containing a collection of all clients in the system by index, and findById grabs an existing Client from that list.
I really have no idea where the class Client is defined, however. I've also made a quick look around for it, and couldn't find it in the obvious places.

There must be a static method called show(Client) on the views.html.Client class that returns some object. That object is passed into an ok(whatever) method, and that ok method returns a Result object.

You're missing some basic knowledge/experience. The sample you gave has nothing to do with routes and in this snippet only first line is important, second is just some hypothetical usage. De facto it could be just...
public static Result show(Long id) {
return ok("You want to display details of client with ID: " + id);
}
Although #BenBarden explained what is that mean correctly , this static method isn't declared anywhere, it's (again) hyphotetical usage of some ORM. For an example the real usage with Ebean's model will be:
Client = Client.find.byId(id);
Of course you can also declare own method in your Client model and name it the same as in the sample, however it will be just only wrapper:
public static Finder<Long, Client> find
= new Finder<>(Long.class, Client.class);
public Client findById(Long id) {
return find.byId(id);
}
Conclusions
You need to examine some samples available with your Play sources to get familiar with some basic syntax, fortunately you'll find it easy.
DO NOT MIX documentation from Play 1.x with Play 2.x they are not compatible!