Problems calling Android's getSharedPreferences(); from SQLiteOpenHelper class - database

First I want to describe my situation briefly.
I have two classes, one MainClass and one DataBaseHelper class, which extends SQLiteOpenHelper.
From my MainClass I call a method in the DataBaseHelper class to open a data base. Before opening the data base I want to check the users data base version (this is important as soon as I want to update the data base and push it to the Android market). So from the DataBaseHelper class I call the following method, which is in the MainClass.
public int checkCurrentDbVersion(){
// Restore preferences
SharedPreferences settings = getSharedPreferences(PREFERENCES, 0);
int dbUpgradeVar = settings.getInt("dbUpgradeVar", 1);
return dbUpgradeVar;
}
I call the checkCurrentDbVersion() method from the DataBaseHelper class like so:
MainClass currentDbVersion = new MainClass();
int oldDbVersion = currentDbVersion.checkCurrentDbVersion();
As soon as the debugger runs the following line, it stops.
SharedPreferences settings = getSharedPreferences(PREFERENCES, 0);
What am I doing wrong? I have no constructor defined. Could that be the failure?
Best Regards
Johe

I found a solution, which I wanna share. It can be found here:
Passing data through intents instead of constructors
I forgot the context (I am still not 100% sure what the context is all about, but anyways...).
So to get the code working I changed it like so:
public int checkCurrentDbVersion(Context context){
// Restore preferences
SharedPreferences settings = context.getSharedPreferences(PREFERENCES, 0);
int dbUpgradeVar = settings.getInt("dbUpgradeVar", 1);
return dbUpgradeVar;
}
Call the method
private final Context myContext;
/*
*do some other stuff here
*/
MainClass currentDbVersion = new MainClass();
int oldDbVersion = currentDbVersion.checkCurrentDbVersion(myContext);

Here is my solution
1.my app can not use.
import androidx.appcompat.app.AppCompatActivity;
SharedPreferences settings = new AppCompatActivity().getSharedPreferences(PREFERENCES, 0);
2.works fine in my app
public static boolean isLoggedIn(AppCompatActivity activity) {
final SharedPreferences loggedSP = activity.getSharedPreferences(SP_name.get_Logged_SPname(), MODE_PRIVATE);
return loggedSP.getBoolean(SP_name.get_Logged_SPkey(),false);
}
to execute it in my main activity
boolean a = LoginRepository.isLoggedIn(this);

Related

Integration testing flink job

I've written a small flink application. I has some input, and enriches it with data from an external source. It's an RichAsyncFunction and within the open method I construct a http client to be used for the enrichment.
Now I want to write an integration test for my job. But since the http client is created within the open method I have no means to provide it, and mock it in my integration test. I've tried to refactor it providing it within the constructor, but I'm always getting serialisation errors.
This is the example I'm working from:
https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.10/dev/stream/operators/asyncio.html
Thanks in advance :)
This question was posted over a year ago but I'll post the answer in-case anyone stumbles upon this in the future.
The serialization exception you are seeing is likely this
Exception encountered when invoking run on a nested suite. *** ABORTED *** (610 milliseconds)
java.lang.NullPointerException:
at java.util.Objects.requireNonNull(Objects.java:203)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.streamrecord.StreamElementSerializer.<init>(StreamElementSerializer.java:64)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.async.AsyncWaitOperator.setup(AsyncWaitOperator.java:136)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.SimpleOperatorFactory.createStreamOperator(SimpleOperatorFactory.java:77)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.StreamOperatorFactoryUtil.createOperator(StreamOperatorFactoryUtil.java:70)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.util.AbstractStreamOperatorTestHarness.setup(AbstractStreamOperatorTestHarness.java:366)
at org.apache.flink.streaming.util.OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness.setup(OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness.java:165)
...
The reason is that your test operator needs to know how to deserialize the DataStream input type. The only way to provide this is by supplying it directly while initializing the testHarness and then passing it to the setup() method call.
So to test the example from the Flink docs you linked you can do something like this (my implementation is in Scala but you can adapt it to Java as well)
import org.apache.flink.api.common.ExecutionConfig
import org.apache.flink.api.java.typeutils.TypeExtractor
import org.apache.flink.configuration.Configuration
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.datastream.AsyncDataStream.OutputMode
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.async.AsyncWaitOperator
import org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.{StreamTaskActionExecutor, TestProcessingTimeService}
import org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.mailbox.{MailboxExecutorImpl, TaskMailboxImpl}
import org.apache.flink.streaming.util.OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness
import org.scalatest.{BeforeAndAfter, FunSuite, Matchers}
/**
This test case is written using Flink 1.11+.
Older versions likely have a simpler constructor definition for [[AsyncWaitOperator]] so you might have to remove the last two arguments (processingTimeService and mailboxExecutor)
*/
class AsyncDatabaseRequestSuite extends FunSuite with BeforeAndAfter with Matchers {
var testHarness: OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness[String, (String, String)] = _
val TIMEOUT = 1000
val CAPACITY = 1000
val MAILBOX_PRIORITY = 0
def createTestHarness: Unit = {
val operator = new AsyncWaitOperator[String, (String, String)](
new AsyncDatabaseRequest {
override def open(configuration: Configuration): Unit = {
client = new MockDatabaseClient(host, post, credentials); // put your mock DatabaseClient object here
}
},
TIMEOUT,
CAPACITY,
OutputMode.UNORDERED,
new TestProcessingTimeService,
new MailboxExecutorImpl(
new TaskMailboxImpl,
MAILBOX_PRIORITY,
StreamTaskActionExecutor.IMMEDIATE
)
)
// supply the TypeSerializer for the "input" type of the operator
testHarness = new OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness[String, (String, String)](
operator,
TypeExtractor.getForClass(classOf[String]).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig)
)
// supply the TypeSerializer for the "output" type of the operator to the setup() call
testHarness.setup(
TypeExtractor.getForClass(classOf[(String, String)]).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig)
)
testHarness.open()
}
before {
createTestHarness
}
after {
testHarness.close()
}
test("Your test case goes here") {
// fill in your test case here
}
}
Here is the solution in Java
class TestingClass {
#InjectMocks
ClassUnderTest cut;
private static OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness<IN, OUT> testHarness; // replace IN, OUT with your asyncFunction's
private static long TIMEOUT = 1000;
private static int CAPACITY = 1000;
private static int MAILBOX_PRIORITY = 0;
private long UNUSED_TIME = 0L;
Driver driverRef;
public void createTestHarness() throws Exception {
cut = new ClassUnderTest() {
#Override
public void open(Configuration parameters) throws Exception {
driver = mock(Driver.class); // mock your driver (external data source here).
driverRef = driver; // create external ref to driver to refer to in test
}
};
MailboxExecutorImpl mailboxExecutorImpl = new MailboxExecutorImpl(
new TaskMailboxImpl(), MAILBOX_PRIORITY, StreamTaskActionExecutor.IMMEDIATE
);
AsyncWaitOperator operator = new AsyncWaitOperator<>(
gatewayEnrichment,
TIMEOUT,
CAPACITY,
ORDERED,
new TestProcessingTimeService(),
mailboxExecutorImpl
);
testHarness = new OneInputStreamOperatorTestHarness<IN, OUT>(
operator,
TypeExtractor.getForClass(IN.class).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig())
);
testHarness.setup(TypeExtractor.getForClass(OUT.class).createSerializer(new ExecutionConfig()));
testHarness.open();
}
#BeforeEach()
void setUp() throws Exception {
createTestHarness();
MockitoAnnotations.openMocks(this);
}
#AfterEach
void tearDown() throws Exception {
testHarness.close();
}
#Test
public void test_yourTestCase() throws Exception {
}
}

Error in Native Interface in codenameone

I have added paypal android SDK under native/android package.Created native interface in main project structure(com.mycompany.myapp).Under native/android the implemented class is using the paypal sdk classes.
My implemented class:
package com.mycompany.myapp;
import com.paypal.android.sdk.payments.PayPalConfiguration;
import com.paypal.android.sdk.payments.PayPalPayment;
import com.paypal.android.sdk.payments.PaymentActivity;
import android.content.Intent;
import android.net.Uri;
import android.app.Activity;
import com.codename1.impl.android.AndroidNativeUtil;
import com.codename1.impl.android.CodenameOneActivity;
import java.math.BigDecimal;
public class MyNativeImpl {
// private static final String TAG = "paymentdemoblog";
/**
* - Set to PaymentActivity.ENVIRONMENT_PRODUCTION to move real money.
*
* - Set to PaymentActivity.ENVIRONMENT_SANDBOX to use your test credentials
* from https://developer.paypal.com
*
* - Set to PayPalConfiguration.ENVIRONMENT_NO_NETWORK to kick the tires
* without communicating to PayPal's servers.
*/
// private static final String CONFIG_ENVIRONMENT =
// PayPalConfiguration.ENVIRONMENT_NO_NETWORK;
private static final String CONFIG_ENVIRONMENT = PayPalConfiguration.ENVIRONMENT_SANDBOX;
// note that these credentials will differ between live & sandbox
// environments.
private static final String CONFIG_CLIENT_ID = "Aeqc2X1rBIEUtDNqsaRNr0h1neFo9QnNmfgmpA3D32uSLaHpGJu9NV1KfMnFmy7O-_hV47I7ST0SXDW2";
private static final int REQUEST_CODE_PAYMENT = 1;
private static final int REQUEST_CODE_FUTURE_PAYMENT = 2;
private static PayPalConfiguration config = new PayPalConfiguration()
.environment(CONFIG_ENVIRONMENT)
.clientId(CONFIG_CLIENT_ID)
// The following are only used in PayPalFuturePaymentActivity.
.merchantName("Hipster Store")
.merchantPrivacyPolicyUri(
Uri.parse("https://www.example.com/privacy"))
.merchantUserAgreementUri(
Uri.parse("https://www.example.com/legal"));
PayPalPayment thingToBuy;
private static Activity activity() {
return com.codename1.impl.android.AndroidNativeUtil.getActivity();
}
public String payPalTest() {
//Activity activity = AndroidNativeUtil.getActivity();
thingToBuy = new PayPalPayment(new BigDecimal("10"), "USD",
"HeadSet", PayPalPayment.PAYMENT_INTENT_SALE);
Intent intent = new Intent(activity(),PaymentActivity.class);
intent.putExtra(PaymentActivity.EXTRA_PAYMENT, thingToBuy);
activity().startActivityForResult(intent, REQUEST_CODE_PAYMENT);
return "test";
}
public boolean isSupported() {
return false;
}
}
I called the method from main class:
MyNative my = (MyNative)NativeLookup.create(MyNative.class);
if(my!= null){
String aa =my.payPalTest();
System.out.println("result::" + aa);
System.out.println("paypalInt" + my.toString());
}
the apk build successfully but getting below error while trigger the code:
android.content.ActivityNotFound
Exception:Unable to find explicit activity class{com.mycompany.myapp/com.paypal.android.sdk.paymentActivity....
It is searching the paypal sdk classes under main project folder structure.Do I need to add the SDK jar under the said structure?
What I need to do to fix the issue.
The code looks fine, I am guessing this is something in the configuration.
Unable to find explicit activity class Payment activity with PayPal SDK in Xamarin on Android

Unity3D - how to use arrays with custom inspector code?

I seem to be stuck in a catch 22 situation with the OnInspectorGUI method of Unity's UnityEditor class. I want to name array elements in the inspector for easy editing, currently I'm using, as per the documentation:
public override void OnInspectorGUI()
{
J_Character charScript = (J_Character)target;
charScript.aBaseStats[0] = EditorGUILayout.FloatField("Base Health", charScript.aBaseStats[0]);
}
In my J_Character script I initialise the aBaseStats array like so:
public float[] aBaseStats = new float[35];
The problem is that whenever I try to do anything in the editor (and thus OnInspectorGUI is called) I get an index out of range error pointing to the line
charScript.aBaseStats[0] = EditorGUILayout.FloatField("Base Health", charScript.aBaseStats[0]);
I'm guessing this is because my array is initialized on game start while the editor code is running all the time while developing.
How can I get round this situation?
Many thanks.
You have to initialize aBaseStats in an function that runs only once.
The code below is BAD:
public float[] aBaseStats = new float[35];
void Start(){
}
The code below is GOOD:
public float[] aBaseStats;
void Start(){
aBaseStats = new float[35];
}
Initialize it in an Editor callback function that runs once.
EDIT:
I don't know a Start callback function that will run before the OnInspectorGUI function(). The hack below should work.
public float[] aBaseStats;
bool initialized = false;
public override void OnInspectorGUI()
{
if (!initialized)
{
initialized = true;
aBaseStats = new float[35];
}
J_Character charScript = (J_Character)target;
charScript.aBaseStats[0] = EditorGUILayout.FloatField("Base Health",aBaseStats[0]);
}
As an addition to the answer by Programmer I would like to point you to the following:
http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/ExecuteInEditMode.html
This seems to be exactly what you are looking for in terms of functionality. (it runs the method even when playmode is not active)
using UnityEngine;
using System.Collections;
[ExecuteInEditMode]
public class ExampleClass : MonoBehaviour {
public Transform target;
void Update() {
if (target)
transform.LookAt(target);
}
}

Autofixture, expected behavior?

Having a test similar to this:
public class myClass
{
public int speed100index = 0;
private List<int> values = new List<int> { 200 };
public int Speed100
{
get
{
return values[speed100index];
}
}
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
var sut = fixture.Create<myClass>();
Assert.AreEqual(sut.Speed100, 200);
}
}
Would have expected this to work, but I can see why it's not. But how do I argue, that this is not a problem with AutoFixture, but a problem with the code?
AutoFixture is giving you feedback about the design of your class. The feedback is, you should follow a more object-oriented design for this class.
Protect your private state, to prevent your class from entering an inconsistent state.
You need to make the speed100index field, private, to ensure it remains consistent with the values List.
Here is what I see if I run debugger on your test:
Autofixture assigns a random number to speed100index field because it is public, and in your array there is nothing at point 53 (from my screenshot)
If you set speed100index to be private, Autofixture will not re-assign the number and your test will pass.

Cleanest way to implement a delayed action on UI thread

I have an action I need to perform around 3 seconds after my app starts. I've implemented it as follows:
internal static class Entry
{
private static SplashScreen splashScreen;
[STAThread]
internal static void Main()
{
ShowSplashScreen();
StartApp();
}
private static void ShowSplashScreen()
{
splashScreen = new SplashScreen("Splash.png");
splashScreen.Show(false, true);
}
private static void StartApp()
{
var app = new App();
//this, in particular, is ugly and more difficult to comprehend than I'd like
var dispatcherTimer = new DispatcherTimer();
dispatcherTimer.Interval = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(3);
dispatcherTimer.Tick += delegate
{
CloseSplashScreen();
dispatcherTimer.Stop();
};
dispatcherTimer.Start();
app.Run();
}
private static void CloseSplashScreen()
{
splashScreen.Close(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
}
}
I find the StartApp() code rather ugly but have not been able to concoct a neater alternative. Is there a common idiom I'm missing here?
PS. Yes, I'm aware SplashScreen has an auto-close option. I'm not wanting to use that mainly because it begins closing as soon as the app has loaded, which I don't want to do.
Here is something similar you might be interested in:
How do we do idle time processing in WPF application?
It's not exactly what you are looking for, because it will close your window as soon as your app goes idle, but you might consider to start your delay after your app went idle. You might find that link helpful than.
Do you not have a specific state when your application is done starting? Normally you want your SplashScreen to close when your application is ready to handle user input, instead of an arbitrary 3 secs. So I would suggest to close your SplashScreen then.
This is about the best I could come up with:
internal static class Entry
{
private static SplashScreen splashScreen;
private static App app;
[STAThread]
internal static void Main()
{
ShowSplashScreen();
CreateApp();
PumpDispatcherUntilPriority(DispatcherPriority.Loaded);
PumpDispatcherFor(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
CloseSplashScreen();
PumpDispatcherUntilAppExit();
}
private static void ShowSplashScreen()
{
splashScreen = new SplashScreen("Splash.png");
splashScreen.Show(false, true);
}
private static void CloseSplashScreen()
{
splashScreen.Close(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(0.5));
}
private static void CreateApp()
{
app = new App();
}
private static void PumpDispatcherUntilPriority(DispatcherPriority dispatcherPriority)
{
var dispatcherFrame = new DispatcherFrame();
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke((ThreadStart)(() => dispatcherFrame.Continue = false), dispatcherPriority);
Dispatcher.PushFrame(dispatcherFrame);
}
private static void PumpDispatcherFor(TimeSpan timeSpan)
{
var dispatcherFrame = new DispatcherFrame();
using (var timer = new Timer(o => dispatcherFrame.Continue = false, null, (long)timeSpan.TotalMilliseconds, Timeout.Infinite))
{
Dispatcher.PushFrame(dispatcherFrame);
}
}
private static void PumpDispatcherUntilAppExit()
{
var dispatcherFrame = new DispatcherFrame();
app.Exit += delegate
{
dispatcherFrame.Continue = false;
};
Dispatcher.PushFrame(dispatcherFrame);
}
}
I toyed with extension methods for Dispatcher, but ultimately found them less intuitive. That's because PushFrame() is static, so any extension methods don't actually execute against the Dispatcher they're invoked against. YMMV.
Note that you could also call app.Run() instead of PumpDispatcherUntilAppExit(), but I just did that for consistency.
Does not really matter if it is ugly, you can just refactor it into a method which takes an Action as parameter for example and that won't be much of a problem.
As by ugly you probably meant that it looks like bad code i would suggest the use of a normal thread (with Thread.Sleep before your action) which uses Dispatcher.Invoke instead. I for one am not aware of any best practice regarding this though. This can also be nicely refactored into a simple method taking an Action.
If you want a non-blocking wait there is a question to be found about that as well.

Resources