I'm creating a kind of data testing program, and one specific part is giving me a huge amount of trouble. In my main method class there is one section where I need to send over a String of data as a parameter in a method to my methods class (let's call it ValidatorClass) and the idea being that the method will then return any validation errors or if there are none simply an empty String.
This would be fine except that I use "for loops" when going through my data to validate as doing it without is just too clunky. I tried to research about arrays of methods and found plenty of useful things that work with void methods but found nothing on any methods that return variables.
In a nutshell I'm asking: Is it possible to create an array of methods (or implement an array of objects to simulate an array of methods) that return a variable?
Here is some example code, but in the actual program the method's return would actually be used further on:
public class Validation{
public static void main(String args){
ValidatorClass valTest = new ValidatorClass();
String[] dataList = {"Andrew", "Jameson", "Male"}
for(int i = 0; i < dataList.length; i++){
String errors = valTest.testInput(dataList[i], i).validationList[i];
System.out.println(errors);
}
}
}
And in ValidatorClass:
public class ValidatorClass{
public String testInput(String data, int index){
//Tests the data by calling method "index" which corresponds to data type.
//ie. validateName would be index : 1, validateSurname index : 2 etc
String errors = validationMethodList[index](data); //Somehow add data as a parameter to it
return errors;
}
public String validateName(String name){
String errors = "";
if(name.length < 1){
errors += "Name Not Entered";
}
return errors;
}
public String validateSurname(String surname){
String errors = "";
if(surname.length < 1){
errors += "Surame Not Entered";
}
return errors;
}
public String validateGender(String gender){
String errors = "";
if(!gender.equalsIgnoreCase("male") || !gender.equalsIngoreCase("female")){
errors += "Invalid Gender";
}
return errors;
}
}
I imagine that you have something like...
static String validate1(Validatible v) { /* do something */ }
static String validate2(Validatible v) { /* do something else */ }
static String validate3(Validatible v) { /* do something still else */ }
And that you want to execute, in some method...
Validatible v = getValidatible();
System.out.println(validate1(v));
System.out.println(validate2(v));
System.out.println(validate3(v));
Then perhaps you could write an interface:
public interface Validator {
String validate(Validatible v);
}
...and keep them in an array or a list...
private static final List<Validator> validators = Arrays.asList(
new Validator() {
#Override
public String validate() {
/* do something */
}
},
new Validator() {
#Override
public String validate() {
/* do something else */
}
},
new Validator() {
#Override
public String validate() {
/* do something still else */
}
}
);
// Can be written more compactly if in Java 8.
Thereafter, you can call the methods in a for-loop:
Validatible v = getValidatible();
for(Validator validator : validators) {
System.out.println(validator.validate(v));
}
Possible improvements would include using a StringBuilder to build a single String (or using the Stream API and using Collectors.joining) if this fits your purpose better.
Related
I am trying to refactor old SimpleFormController. I would like to replace getSuccessView() and gerFormView() calls with actual success view and form view Strings.
I went through https://spoon.gforge.inria.fr/first_transformation.html, it shows how to generate and add statements however I could not understand how to modify.
I have tried couple of things.
Replace statements with the getSuccessView() and getFormView() calls
public class SimpleFormControllerReplaceViewCall extends AbstractProcessor<CtMethod> {
MetaData meta;
String successView= "successView";
String formView = "formView";
public SimpleFormControllerReplaceViewCall(MetaData meta) {
this.meta = meta;
}
#Override
public boolean isToBeProcessed(CtMethod candidate) {
if(candidate.getBody() == null) { //Ignore abstract methods
return false;
}
String sourceCode;
try {
sourceCode = candidate.getBody()
.getOriginalSourceFragment()
.getSourceCode();
} catch (Exception e) {
return false;
}
return sourceCode.contains(getViewFunctionName(successView))
|| sourceCode.contains(getViewFunctionName(formView));
}
#Override
public void process(CtMethod method) {
Node beanNode = getBeanNode(method);
CtBlock<Object> body = getFactory().createBlock();
method.getBody().getStatements()
.stream()
.map(s -> {
Optional<String> sourceCode = getStatementSourceCode(s);
if(!sourceCode.isPresent()) {
return s.clone(); // Clone required to handle runtime error for trying attach a node to two parents
} else {
System.out.println("Modifying: " + method.getSignature());
String code = sourceCode.get();
code = replaceViewCalls(beanNode, code, successView);
code = replaceViewCalls(beanNode, code, formView);
return getFactory().createCodeSnippetStatement(code);
}
}).forEach(body::addStatement);
method.setBody(body);
}
private Optional<String> getStatementSourceCode(CtStatement s) {
String sourceCode = null;
try {
sourceCode = s.getOriginalSourceFragment()
.getSourceCode();
} catch (Exception e) {}
System.out.println(sourceCode);
if (sourceCode != null &&
(sourceCode.contains(getViewFunctionName(successView))
|| sourceCode.contains(getViewFunctionName(formView)))) {
sourceCode = sourceCode.trim();
if(sourceCode.endsWith(";"))
sourceCode = sourceCode.substring(0, sourceCode.length()-1);
return Optional.of(sourceCode);
} else {
return Optional.empty();
}
}
public String replaceViewCalls(Node beanNode, String code, String viewType) {
String getViewFunctionName = getViewFunctionName(viewType);
if (!code.contains(getViewFunctionName)) {
return code;
}
String view = AppUtil.getSpringBeanPropertyValue(beanNode, viewType);
return code.replaceAll(getViewFunctionName + "\\(\\)", String.format("\"%s\"", view));
}
public Node getBeanNode(CtMethod method) {
String qualifiedName = method.getParent(CtClass.class).getQualifiedName();
return meta.getFullyQualifiedNameToNodeMap().get(qualifiedName);
}
private String getViewFunctionName(String viewType) {
return "get" + viewType.substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + viewType.substring(1);
}
}
This however adds unwanted at end of blocks if() {... }; This creates syntax errors when if {} else {} blocks contain return statement(s). Auto import is turned on and imports are not added when there is more one class with same name (e.g., Map is present in classpath from few libraries) - this is consistent with the document. Can this be avoided when refactoring code? Original java file has correct imports.
Another approach I tried is to directly manipulate the body as a whole.
#Override
public void process(CtMethod method) {
String code = method.getBody()
.getOriginalSourceFragment()
.getSourceCode();
Node beanNode = getBeanNode(method);
code = replaceViewCalls(beanNode, code, successView);
code = replaceViewCalls(beanNode, code, formView);
CtCodeSnippetStatement codeStatement = getFactory().createCodeSnippetStatement(code);
method.setBody(codeStatement);
}
this still has same auto import issue as first one. Apart from that it adds redundant curly braces, for examples
void method() { x=y;}
will become
void method() { {x=y;} }
That that will be pretty printed ofcourse.
Also javadocs for getOriginalSourceFragment() also has below warning
Warning: this is a advanced method which cannot be considered as part
of the stable API
One more thing I thought of doing is creating pattern for each type of usage of getSuccessView() like
viewName = getSuccessView();
return getSuccessView();
return ModelAndView(getSuccessView(), map); etc, however for that I will have to write a whole bunch of processors / templates.
Since it is simple replacement, easiest is do something like below
//Walk over all files and execute
Files.lines(Paths.get("/path/to/java/file"))
.map(l -> l.replaceAll("getSuccessView\\(\\)", "actualViewNameWithEscapedQuotes"))
.map(l -> l.replaceAll("getFormView\\(\\)", "actualViewNameWithEscapedQuotes"))
.forEach(l -> {
//write to file
});
Since I can avoid text manipulation with the help of spoon for things like changing modifiers, annotations, method name, annotations etc, I am hoping there should be a better way to modify the method body.
You should treat the processor input as an abstract syntax tree instead of a string:
public class SimpleFormControllerReplaceViewCall extends AbstractProcessor<CtMethod<?>> {
#Override
public boolean isToBeProcessed(CtMethod candidate) {
if(candidate.isAbstract()) { //Ignore abstract methods
return false;
}
return !candidate.filterChildren((CtInvocation i)->
i.getExecutable().getSimpleName().equals("getSuccessView")
|| i.getExecutable().getSimpleName().equals("getFormView")).list().isEmpty();
}
#Override
public void process(CtMethod<?> ctMethod) {
Launcher launcher = new Launcher();
CodeFactory factory = launcher.createFactory().Code();
List<CtInvocation> invocations = ctMethod.filterChildren((CtInvocation i)->
i.getExecutable().getSimpleName().equals("getSuccessView")
|| i.getExecutable().getSimpleName().equals("getFormView")).list();
for(CtInvocation i : invocations) {
if(i.getExecutable().getSimpleName().equals("getSuccessView")) {
i.replace(factory.createLiteral("successView"));
} else {
i.replace(factory.createLiteral("formView"));
}
}
}
}
Here the CtMethod AST is traversed in search for CtInvocation elements with the specified properties. The found elements are then replaced with new string literal elements.
hi guys I already searched a lot but weren't really satisfied with what I found. hope it's the right place to ask this question.
I'm doing Java now for a small amount of time (changed from C) and have problems of getting a grip of how to structure my code best for OOP.
let's give a simple example:
If I'm using some predefined strings (let's say e.g. filepaths or error messages) I'm currently creating an own class doing something like:
private static final String libPath = "\\this\\is\\a\\path\\";
private static final String notFoundMessage = "This hasn't been found";
public static String getLibPath() {
return libPath;
}
public static final String getNotFoundMessage() {
return notFoundMessage;
}
...
Would it be better to create a Map, add everything to it and get it by key?
Or am I doing it completely wrong?
Second example:
let's say I return an error string somewhere
public String getSomething() {
if (something != null) {
return something;
} else {
//handle error, return string below
}
return "I HAVE AN ERROR";
}
And anywhere else in my program I'm checking for the return value:
if (!string.equals("I HAVE AN ERROR")) {
//do something
}
else {
// handle error
}
that's obviously a bad way having to change the code twice once the error message changes. and yeah, I could define the error string the same way I'm doing it in the first example but as I'm not satisfied with that one either I'm reaching a dead end.
would be glad to hear some of your suggestions how to properly do OOP !
First example :
private static final String libPath = "\\this\\is\\a\\path\\";
private static final String notFoundMessage = "This hasn't been found";
public static String getLibPath() {
return libPath;
}
public static final String getNotFoundMessage() {
return notFoundMessage;
}
...
In this case, no need to create a Map. That is the right way to do it. Just note that the libPath would be better defined like this :
private static final Path libPath = Paths.get("this", "is", "a", "path");
(The class Path exists since Java 7, current version is Java 8)
Second example:
public String getSomething() {
if (something != null) {
return something;
} else {
//handle error, return string below
}
return "I HAVE AN ERROR";
}
No : Never return error codes in Java. Prefer using an exception.
Example :
public class ElementNotFoundException extends Exception {
...
}
public String getSomething() {
if (something == null) {
throw new ElementNotFoundException();
} else {
return something;
}
}
Then, you handle the exception like this :
try {
myObject.getSomething();
} catch(ElementNotFoundException e) {
//handle error
}
For the first example, take a look at Internationalization: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/i18n/
You can use statics or maps, but sooner or later you will need to show the messages in several languages.
For the second example, it's better to use Exceptions as they are intended to be used when an abnormal condition (like an error) happens.
Anyway, with Exceptions take care not to use it as flow control structures: Why not use exceptions as regular flow of control?
Here are some examples for handling constants throug out your code:
1. Class
public final class MyConstants {
public static final int ERROR_CODE = -1;
}
if (getSomething() == MyConstants.ERROR_CODE) {
// ...
}
2. Interface
public interface MyConstantsHolder {
int ERROR_CODE = -1;
}
public MyClass implements MyConstantsHolder {
public void myMethod() {
if (getSomething() == ERROR_CODE) {
// ...
}
}
}
I have recently ran into this problem with my MorseString class. I have two different constructors that do different things, but take the same data type:
/*
* Constructor that takes the Morse Code as a String as a parameter
*/
public MorseString(String s) {
if(!isValidMorse(s)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("s is not a valid Morse Code");
}
// ...
}
and
/*
* Constructor that takes the String as a parameter and converts it to Morse Code
*/
public MorseString(String s) {
// ...
}
I came up with this solution:
public MorseString(String s, ParameterType type) {
if(type == ParameterType.CODE) {
if(!isValidMorse(s)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("s is not a valid Morse Code");
}
// Constructor that takes Morse
} else {
// Constructor that takes String
}
}
But it looks ugly. Any other solutions?
Yes. Get rid of your constructors and use instead some other approach, such as
1) A Factory Method, so you'd have methods like this:
class MorseString {
private MorseString(){};
public static MorseString getFromCode(String s) {
// ...
}
public static MorseString getFromString(String s) {
// ...
}
}
// Usage: MorseString.getFromCode(foo);
or
2) A Builder, so you'd have methods like this
class MorseString {
private MorseString(){};
static class Builder {
Builder initFromCode(String code) {
// ..
return this;
}
Builder initFromString(String str) {
// ..
return this;
}
MorseString build() {
// ..
}
}
}
// Usage: MorseString.Builder.initFromCode(foo).build();
A builder is good if you have a highly complex creation logic, lots of parameters, having objects with only some of their information in mid-creation, some preliminary validations etc. A factory method is lighter approach for a situation where you have multiple ways of creating your object with slightly varying parameters.
Since one of the constructors is expecting ready-made Morse Code data (so it is more like a "constructor" - literally constructing an object from the data), and the other has to do some conversion, it might make more sense to make a static factory method called something like convert:
/*
* Constructor that takes the Morse Code as a String as a parameter
*/
public MorseString(String s) {
if(!isValidMorse(s)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("s is not a valid Morse Code");
}
// ...
}
/*
* Factory method that takes the String as a parameter and converts it to Morse Code
*/
public static MorseString convert(String s) {
// ...
return new MorseString(convertedString);
}
So if you had a valid morse code string, you use the constructor to turn it into an object. However if you have data that needs conversion, you would call the static factory method:
MorseString ms = MorseString.convert(myString);
This is the code of the method that I want to simplify. The method name I call of SerializedExpFamMixture class is exactly the value of "model", my question is how to assign the value of "model" directly as the name of the method instead of using "if" to determine which method I should call. Since by using "if", I need to list all the possible values of "model" and judge which method I should use.
Thank you very much for help. I am new to java.
public static SerializedExpFamMixture RateMtxModel(String model)
{
SerializedExpFamMixture result=new SerializedExpFamMixture();
if(model=="kimura1980()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
if(model=="accordance()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
if(model=="pair()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
return result;
}
One way you can approach this is to use Reflection:
Method method = myClass.getClass().getMethod("doSomething", null);
method.invoke(myClass, null);
Since you are new to Java, it's time for some general pointers:
In Java, we usually name our methods with camelCase, so the first letter is lower case.
Also, in Java we usually leave the opening curly-bracket on the same line as the code (no newline).
Always use final on your variables. At least your parameters. That way you won't overwrite it, and thus won't have to try to figure out which value it actually has at runtime.
Use curly-brackets! Please!
The result variable is not actually needed.
Use the equals-method to compare Strings.
If you only want one result, use else-if
Fixing these things, your method looks like this:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
if (model.equals("kimura1980()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
} else if (model.equals("accordance()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
} else if(model.equals("pair()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Next, let's look at what you are actually trying to do here. You want to pass some Strings around, and use them as a basis for creating objects. And now, with the advice given here, you will do this using reflection. This does not sound like a very good idea to me. Say you were to go through with this, and this happened:
rateMtxModel("kinura1980");
Small typo, hard to spot, will give unexpected results. If you were actually calling a method the compiler would let you know that you messed up, now you will get no warning (btw did you see both errors in that method call?). The same if someone were to delete the accordance()-method, the compiler would not alert them that this will break the program.
If it was up to be I would just use the static factory-methods in SerializedExpFamMixture directly, but if you have to do it like this (if the task at hand is using a String input to create an object) I would do something like this:
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()"),
ACCORDANCE("accordance()"),
PAIR("pair()");
private final String stringValue;
private Something(final String stringValue) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (something.stringValue.equals(string)) {
return something;
}
}
return null;
}
}
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(final String model) {
if (model == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("model is null!");
}
final Something something = Something.fromString(model);
if (something == null) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
switch(something) {
case KIMURA1980:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
case ACCORDANCE:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
case PAIR:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
default:
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
}
This way, the one place where you will use the Strings is in the enum, the rest of the code will use the enum constants and thus have the safety of the compiler to rely on.
One could also leave the linking between operation and String to the enum, like this:
interface Operation<T> {
public T run();
}
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
}
}) ,
ACCORDANCE("accordance()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
}
}),
PAIR("pair()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
}),
DEFAULT(null, new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
});
private final String stringValue;
private final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation;
private Something(final String stringValue, final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
this.operation = operation;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
if (string != null) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (string.equals(something.stringValue)) {
return something;
}
}
}
return DEFAULT;
}
public SerializedExpFamMixture getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture() {
return operation.run();
}
}
With this setup in the enum (I think the Operation-part can be trimmed out with Java8), the method will be as simple as:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
return Something.fromString(model).getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Use reflection, but you need to consider a few things:
Bug alert! Comparing Strings using == doesn't work as expected in java - use .equals() instead. However, the solution below bypasses that problem
For the general case, which includes methods not visible to the invoker, you need to consider accessibility, both in finding the method and invoking it
You don't need the result variable, and even if using your code, don't need to initialize it
Try this:
String methodName = model.replace("(", "").replace(")", "");
try {
// getMethod() returns only public methods, getDeclaredMethod() returns any visibility
Method method = SerializedExpFamMixture.class.getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
// if the method is not guaranteed to be visible (eg public) you need this:
method.setAccessible(true);
return (SerializedExpFamMixture) method.invoke(null); // how to invoke on the class object
} catch (Exception forBrevity) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Is it possible to make the following code cleaner with less repetition using annotations?
I know it would be possible with java 8 closures, but trying to get this working on java 6/7
Variable x = new Variable(this,"HClass","HC"){
#Override
String getValue(Player p){
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getHeroClass().getName();
}
};
Variable y = new Variable(this,"HSecClass","HSC"){
#Override
String getValue(Player p){
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getSecondClass().getName();
}
};
Variable z = new Variable(this,"HLevel","HL"){
#Override
String getValue(Player p){
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getLevel();
}
};
Variable a = new Variable(this,"HMastered","HMa"){
#Override
String getValue(Player p){
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).isMaster(getHeroFromPlayer(p).getHeroClass()) && (heroSClass == null || getHeroFromPlayer(p).isMaster(heroSClass))
? LocaleType.MESSAGE_HEROES_TRUE.getVal() : LocaleType.MESSAGE_HEROES_FALSE.getVal();;
}
};
This goes on for some time, where they are all added to a map, which returns the results lazily.
Edit: I was hoping that annotations would allow me to do something along the lines of
#Variable("HLevel","HL")
String getHLevel(){getHeroFromPlayer(p).getlevel();}
Edit: Variable.java
abstract class Variable {
final private VariableGroup vg;
final private List<String> keys = new Vector<String>();
Variable(VariableGroup vg,String...varargs){
this.vg = vg;
for (String s:varargs){
keys.add(s);
}
}
abstract String getValue(Player p);
}
Based on your comments you can do something like this
#Variable("Primary Class")
public String getHClass(Player p) {
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getHeroClass().getName();
}
#Variable("Primary Class Level")
public int getHLevel(Player p) {
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getHLevel();
}
#Variable("Secondary Class")
public String getHSecClass(Player p) {
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getSecondClass().getName();
}
#Variable("Secondary Class Level")
public int getHLevel(Player p) {
return getHeroFromPlayer(p).getHSecLevel();
}
Note: there is no need for all fields to return a String. To get this information you can do the following
Class heroClass =
for(Method method : heroClass.getMethods()) {
Variable var = method.getAnnotation(Variable.class);
if (var == null) continue; // ignore Object.getClass()
String description = var.value; // text to display to users
String attributeName = method.getName().substring(3); // cut "get"
String initials = attributeName.replaceAll("[a-z]+", "");
}
It's hard to say what can be improved without seeing the code for the Variable class. My first question is why are you are creating anonymous inner classes just to return a value for the getValue method? Why not just add a value parameter to the constructor and update the method to return that value?