I am using the AutoDataAttribute class within AutoFixture.Xunit2 in a lot of projects. The recommended approach to add your own customizations seems to be a derived attribute like the following (note I am using FakeItEasy):
public class AutoFakeItEasyDataAttribute : AutoDataAttribute
{
public AutoFakeItEasyDataAttribute()
: base(() => new Fixture().Customize(new DomainCustomization()))
{
}
}
In an effort to reduce code copying/pasting, I wanted to abstract this derived attribute to a package we could consume in our projects. However, despite attempts utilizing dependency injection with this library and running into CLR issues with the DataAttribute not able to take anything beyond basic "primitives", I have ran into the proverbial "brick-wall". Obviously constructor injection doesn't seem to work here nor property injection to my knowledge (although unlikely that matters as the property isn't allocated until after the constructor call anyway).
The bottom line, I am looking for a way to include this derived attribute into a package but in a way where the domains can be customized for each individual project's needs?
I don't think what you're trying to achieve is possible due to how attributes work in C#. As you mentioned yourself you cannot pass into the attributes but a small set of primitive values, and in xUnit 2 data attributes don't have access to the test class instance, so you can not inject instances via reflection.
You could theoretically inject the IFixture instance into the test class using the library you mentioned (which I think is a horrible practice, that promotes sloppier tests), but then you'd have to give up the decorator notation of AutoFixture and use the declarative notation, to create your test data.
Related
I'd like to ask what are your thought on deprecation of the TableRegistry::get() static call in CakePHP 3.6?
In my opinion it was not a good idea.
First of all, using LocatorAwareTrait is wrong on many levels. Most important, using traits in such way can break the Single Responsibility and Separation of Concerns principles. In addition some developers don't want to use traits as all because they thing that it breaks the object oriented design pattern. They prefer delegation.
I prefer to use delegation as well with combination of flyweight/singleton approach. I know that the delegation is encapsulated by the LocatorAwareTrait but the only problem is that it exposes the (get/set)TableLocator methods that can be used incorrectly.
In other words if i have following facade:
class Fruits {
use \Cake\ORM\Locator\LocatorAwareTrait;
public function getApples() { ... }
public function getOranges() { ... }
...
}
$fruits = new Fruits();
I don't want to be able to call $fruits->getTableLocator()->get('table') outside of the scope of Fruits.
The other thing you need to consider when you make such changes is the adaptation of the framework. Doing TableRegistry::getTableLocator()->get('table') every time i need to access the model is not the best thing if i have multiple modules in my application that move beyond simple layered architecture.
Having flyweight/singleton class like TableRegistry with property get to access desired model just makes the development more straight forward and life easier.
Ideally, i would just like to call TR::get('table'), although that breaks the Cake's coding standards. (I've created that wrapper for myself anyways to make my app bullet proof from any similar changes)
What are your thoughts?
I am working on a ClojureScript wrapper for qx.mobile and would like to programmatically build a cljs type hierarchy mirroring the qx class hierarchy.
Is there a way to get all the subclasses of a qooxdoo class?
How about a programmatic way to query the superclass of a class?
I am already putting qx.Class.getProperties to good use.
Thx, kt
The programmatic way of getting the superclass of a given class is documented at http://demo.qooxdoo.org/current/apiviewer/#qx.Class
<classname>.superclass
or getting the name of the superclass as a string
<classname>.superclass.classname
which means that e.g.
qx.ui.core.Widget.superclass.classname
will return the string "qx.ui.core.LayoutItem".
Regarding the programmatic way to retreive all subclasses of a class:
This is currently not possible without iterating the whole class hierarchy/tree and testing the objects against being subclasses of the given class.
We discussed at https://gitter.im/qooxdoo/qooxdoo that it maybe would be usefull to create an array for each class holding the subclasses. This could be added to the code of the private method __createClass in qx.Class.
We would like to encourage everyone who needs this (or other) functionalities to join us on https://github.com/qooxdoo/qooxdoo/ and help extending qooxdoo by creating a pull requests. Thank you.
After digging arround a bit in qx.Class we decided to implement a method qx.Class.getSubclasses which returns a hash object with all subclasses of a given class.
var subclasses = qx.Class.getSubclasses(qx.ui.core.Widget);
gets all subclasses of qx.ui.core.Widget.
Landed in qooxdoo master with commit https://github.com/qooxdoo/qooxdoo/pull/9037
I'm working on a large Winforms project for a client that is using business objects modeled on pre-.NET 2.0 CSLA. Upgrading to a newer version of CSLA is not an option. My client uses CodeSmith to generate "base" CSLA-style business objects from database tables. All business objects come with a corresponding "List" class.
One of the problems I've run into is binding to Winforms controls, because the generated List classes do not implement ITypedList. I've been told by the client that I can extend the List classes and implement it myself (they provided the code snippet below), but am dealing with quite a few business objects, and am violating DRY every time I extend one of the List classes to implement ITypedList. I'm using the following code in every extended List class:
public class SomeItemListExtended : SomeItemListBase, ITypedList
{
public string GetListName(PropertyDescriptor[] listAccessors)
{
return null;
}
public PropertyDescriptorCollection GetItemProperties(PropertyDescriptor[] listAccessors)
{
return TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(CreateContent().GetType());
}
}
CreateContent simply returns a new instance of the item that the List is a collection of:
public BusinessBase CreateContent()
{
return new SomeItem();
}
I've been trying to figure out if there's a way I can use inheritance to avoid having the same code duplicated in each List class extension, but haven't figured out how to do it without multiple inheritance, which we all know isn't possible anyway. If I create a ListExtensionBase class that implements ITypedList, my extension classes can't inherit from both ListExtensionBase and, in the example above, SomeItemListBase. If I create a base class with a generic parameter, I lose direct access to all of the base class members. I have no control over how SomeItemListBase is generated and have been instructed to use their business object framework as-is. Is there any way I can get around implementing ITypedList with the same code in every single List extension? Should I even be using the same code for each implementation, or should the ITypedList implementations be different for each extension?
Without being able to modify the base classes, I think your stuck with implementing ITypedList separately on each list class.
This might be a bit out there, but suppose I want to use Moq in a ViewModel to create some design time data, like so:
public class SomeViewModel
{
public SomeViewModel(ISomeDependency dependency)
{
if (IsInDesignMode)
{
var mock = new Mock<ISomeDependency>();
dependency = mock.Object; // this throws!
}
}
}
The mock could be set up to do some stuff, but you get the idea.
My problem is that at design-time in Blend, this code throws an InvalidCastException, with the message along the lines of "Unable to cast object of type 'Castle.Proxies.ISomeDependencyProxy2b3a8f3188284ff0b1129bdf3d50d3fc' to type 'ISomeDependency'." While this doesn't necessarily look to be Moq related but Castle related, I hope the Moq example helps ;)
Any idea why that is?
Thanks!
I'm having a similar issue, except that the cast is coming from a dynamically generated assembly (Blend_RuntimeGeneratedTypesAssembly) type that is masquerading as one of my types.
For no apparent reason.
Which is driving me CRAZY.
I used to think that I needed to do this sort of trick but after much experiementing and searching about, discovered that Blend 4 now can create design time sample datacontexts based on an existing class.
This effectively gives you a dummy class that looks just like your VM class so that you can add your binding etc.
It works well enough that this is the technique we now recommend.
A possible disadvantage with this is that if you need your real VM to perform some sort of interactivity then the proxy of course can't do that - you'd have to manually change values, or swap to another design time object. But in practice, I've rarely encountered this scenario. Most of the time, you set the state of the VM and then take ages getting the look right.
Update: released on github: https://github.com/GeniusCode/GeniusCode.Components.DynamicDuck
I also ran into a similar problem when trying to use castle to mock viewmodels at design time. We wrote our own msil duck / mock library, and it works well for that purpose.
I blogged about it here: http://blogs.geniuscode.net/JeremiahRedekop/?p=255
We are working to release the library under MS-PL and deploy on GitHub.
What are the pros and cons of having multiple inheritance?
And why don't we have multiple inheritance in C#?
UPDATE
Ok so it is currently avoided because of the issue with clashes resolving which parent method is being called etc. Surely this is a problem for the programmer to resolve. Or maybe this could be resolve simularly as SQL where there is a conflict more information is required i.e. ID might need to become Sales.ID to resolve a conflict in the query.
Here is a good discussion on the pitfalls of multiple inheritance:
Why should I avoid multiple inheritance in C++?
Here is a discussion from the C# team on why they decided not to allow multiple inheritance:
http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/03/07/85562.aspx
http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/unknownreference/archive/2003/09/04/1401.aspx
It's just another tool in the toolbox. Sometimes, it is exactly the right tool. If it is, having to find a workaround because the language actually prohibits it is a pain and leads to good opportunities to screw it up.
Pros and cons can only be found for a concrete case. I guess that it's quite rare to actually fit a problem, but who are the language designers to decide how I am to tackle a specific problem?
I will give a pro here based on a C++ report-writer I've been converting to REALbasic (which has interfaces but only single-inheritance).
Multiple inheritance makes it easier to compose classes from small mixin base classes that implement functionality and have properties to remember state. When done right, you can get a lot of reuse of small code without having to copy-and-paste similar code to implement interfaces.
Fortunately, REALbasic has extends methods which are like the extension methods recently added to C# in C# 3.0. These help a bit with the problem, especially as they can be applied to arrays. I still ended up with some class hierarchies being deeper as a result of folding in what were previously multiply-inherited classes.
The main con is that if two classes have a method with the same name, the new subclass doesn't know which one to call.
In C# you can do a form of multiple inheritance by including instances of each parent object within the child.
class MyClass
{
private class1 : Class1;
private class2: Class2;
public MyClass
{
class1 = new Class1;
class2 = new Class2;
}
// Then, expose whatever functionality you need to from there.
}
When you inherit from something you are asserting that your class is of that (base) type in every way except that you may implement something slightly differently or add something to it, its actually extremely rare that your class is 2 things at once. Usually it just has behavour common to 2 or more things, and a better way to describe that generally is to have your class implement multiple interfaces. (or possibly encapsulation, depending on your circumstances)
It's one of those help-me-to-not-shoot-myself-in-the-foot quirks, much like in Java.
Although it is nice to extend fields and methods from multiple sources (imagine a Modern Mobile Phone, which inherits from MP3 Players, Cameras, Sat-Navs, and the humble Old School Mobile Phone), clashes cannot be resolved by the compiler alone.