I am migrating schemas from proto2 to proto3 syntax. I want to eliminate extensions as they are not supported. Is it possible to get an object using a field name in proto3, similar to what MutableExtension does in proto2.
For example,
Schema in proto2 syntax
message Foo {
message Bar {
unint32 a = 1;
}
extend Foo {
Bar b = 1;
}
}
C++
Foo::Bar b_val = foo.MutableExtension(Foo::b);
Now in proto3, I could do this:
syntax="proto3";
message Foo {
message Bar {
unint32 a = 1;
}
Bar b = 1;
}
C++ code:
Foo::Bar b_val = foo.mutable_b();
However, I want to use the name Foo::b to get a Foo::Bar object. Is there a way to do this?
It's not clear why you need this but what you are asking for is kinda feasible.
Foo::b is a garden variety member function, which means that &Foo::b is a regular pointer-to-member-function.
So you can use it as such using the regular c++ syntax for these entities:
auto b_ref = &Foo::b;
Foo::Bar b_val = (foo.*b_ref)();
Related
For Example, I have a variable like this.
var fooBar = 12;
I want a something like this in Dart lang.
print_var_name(fooBar);
which prints:
fooBar
How can I achieve that? Is this even possible?
Thank you.
There is no such thing in Dart for the web or for Flutter.
Reflection can do that, but reflection is only supported in the server VM because it hurts tree-shaking.
You need to write code for that manually or use code generation where you need that.
An example:
class SomeClass {
String foo = 'abc';
int bar = 12;
dynamic operator [](String name) {
switch(name) {
case 'foo': return foo;
case 'bar': return bar;
default: throw 'no such property: "$name"';
}
}
}
main() {
var some = SomeClass();
print(some['foo']);
print(some['bar']);
}
output:
abc
123
First of all: I'm not an expert in protobuf.
Suppose I have such message structure:
package msg_RepAndOpt;
message RepAndOpt
{
repeated string name = 1;
optional string surname = 2;
...
// there are lots of others.
}
And I have two components that have copies of this message:
// component1:
RepAndOpt A;
A.add_name("Name");
A.set_surname("Surname");
// component2:
RepAndOpt B;
In my case components modify those messages via transaction mechanism. It means that if one component changes some field it also sends it to another component to propagate those changes. Component-receiver is doing merge:
// Component2 modifies B and sends it to component1.
// Component1 perfoms merge:
A.MergeFrom(B);
Now, say, component2 wants to erase field "name".
If it will send clear B message (default construction) than:
MergeFrom() will not modify A;
CopyFrom() will erase also other fields.
Another way will be to fill B with the contents of A, clear name field and component1 will use CopyFrom().
But this is not acceptable because system is really high-loaded and there could be lots of other fields.
So, desired solution to clean name field is:
Component2 create B message.
Explicitly stores information that it want to erase only name field.
Component1 perform A.MergeFrom(B).
Result: A::name is cleared but other fields are left untouched.
As far as I tested this applies to repeated and optional fields.
Is there any ready-to-use solution or I should modify protobuf implementation?
There is no builtin protobuf solution for your case. The obvious solution would be to iterate over all the fields in message A and check if that field is present in message B, if not you could clear it.
You can't solve this with basic MergeFrom(), but you may want to check out these from the protobuf library:
https://github.com/google/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
https://github.com/google/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/protobuf/util/field_mask_util.h
In particular FieldMaskUtil::MergeMessageTo() seems to do what you want. You'll need to construct a FieldMask specifying exactly which fields you're interested in, so that other fields are left untouched.
UPD: updated after comments from Kenton Varda (see below).
Expanding one of the previous answers:
There is a way to solve it by adding new field in message definition (this works for proto v2):
repeated int32 fields_to_copy = 15;
This field will be filled by ID's of fields that would be copied (not merged) on the reciever side.
I also implemented this helper function:
// CopiableProtoMsg.hpp
#pragma once
#include <google/protobuf/message.h>
template <typename T>
void CopyMessageFields(const T& from, T& to)
{
const ::google::protobuf::Descriptor *desc = T::descriptor();
const ::google::protobuf::Reflection *thisRefl = from.GetReflection();
std::vector<const ::google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor*> fields;
int size = from.fields_to_copy_size();
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
const ::google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor *field = desc->FindFieldByNumber(from.fields_to_copy(i));
fields.push_back(field);
}
T msgCopy(from);
thisRefl->SwapFields(&to, &msgCopy, fields);
to.clear_fields_to_copy();
}
This function checks fields_to_copy field and perform copying (via SwapFields()).
Here is the simple test:
RepAndOpt emulateSerialization(const RepAndOpt& B)
{
RepAndOpt BB;
std::string data;
B.SerializeToString(&data);
BB.ParseFromString(data);
return BB;
}
TEST(RepAndOptTest, additional_field_do_the_job_with_serialization)
{
RepAndOpt A;
RepAndOpt B;
A.add_name("1");
A.add_name("2");
A.add_name("3");
A.set_surname("A");
B.add_name("1");
B.add_name("3");
B.add_fields_to_copy(RepAndOpt::kNameFieldNumber);
RepAndOpt recvB = emulateSerialization(B);
A.MergeFrom(recvB);
CopyMessageFields(recvB, A);
EXPECT_EQ(2, A.name_size());
EXPECT_STREQ("1", A.name(0).c_str());
EXPECT_STREQ("3", A.name(1).c_str());
EXPECT_TRUE(A.has_surname());
EXPECT_EQ(0, A.fields_to_copy_size());
}
Expanding approach with field masks (that was proposed by Kenton Varda):
Note: This solution requires proto3, however the original message can be declared with proto2 syntax. (link to proof)
We can define a field mask field:
import "google/protobuf/field_mask.proto";
message RepAndOpt
{
repeated string name = 1;
optional string surname = 2;
optional google.protobuf.FieldMask field_mask = 3;
}
And here is the test usage:
RepAndOpt emulateSerialization(const RepAndOpt& B)
{
RepAndOpt BB;
std::string data;
B.SerializeToString(&data);
BB.ParseFromString(data);
return BB;
}
void mergeMessageTo(const RepAndOpt& src, RepAndOpt& dst)
{
dst.MergeFrom(src);
if (src.has_field_mask())
{
FieldMaskUtil::MergeOptions megreOpt;
megreOpt.set_replace_message_fields(true);
megreOpt.set_replace_repeated_fields(true);
FieldMaskUtil::MergeMessageTo(src, src.field_mask(), megreOpt, &dst);
}
}
TEST(RepAndOptTest, fix_merge_do_the_job_with_serialization_multiple_values)
{
RepAndOpt A;
A.add_name("A");
A.add_name("B");
A.add_name("C");
A.set_surname("surname");
RepAndOpt B;
B.add_name("A");
B.add_name("C");
B.mutable_field_mask()->add_paths("name");
mergeMessageTo(emulateSerialization(B), A);
EXPECT_EQ(2, A.name_size());
EXPECT_STREQ("A", A.name(0).c_str());
EXPECT_STREQ("C", A.name(1).c_str());
EXPECT_STREQ("surname", A.surname().c_str());
}
I had similar use case and ended up implement my own mixture based on that #Denis' answer.
Although the language was Golang, which doesn't have FieldMaskUtil with MergeOptions.
RepAndOpt.A.name RepAndOpt.B.name
remove ["A", "B", "C"] ["A"] => remove: A, keep: B, C
add ["A", "B", "C"] ["D"] => add: D, keep: A, B, C
add/remove ["A", "B", "C"] ["A", "D"] => remove: A, add: D, keep: B
I want to create a function object, which also has some properties held on it. For example in JavaScript I would do:
var f = function() { }
f.someValue = 3;
Now in TypeScript I can describe the type of this as:
var f: { (): any; someValue: number; };
However I can't actually build it, without requiring a cast. Such as:
var f: { (): any; someValue: number; } =
<{ (): any; someValue: number; }>(
function() { }
);
f.someValue = 3;
How would you build this without a cast?
Update: This answer was the best solution in earlier versions of TypeScript, but there are better options available in newer versions (see other answers).
The accepted answer works and might be required in some situations, but have the downside of providing no type safety for building up the object. This technique will at least throw a type error if you attempt to add an undefined property.
interface F { (): any; someValue: number; }
var f = <F>function () { }
f.someValue = 3
// type error
f.notDeclard = 3
This is easily achievable now (typescript 2.x) with Object.assign(target, source)
example:
The magic here is that Object.assign<T, U>(t: T, u: U) is typed to return the intersection T & U.
Enforcing that this resolves to a known interface is also straight-forward. For example:
interface Foo {
(a: number, b: string): string[];
foo: string;
}
let method: Foo = Object.assign(
(a: number, b: string) => { return a * a; },
{ foo: 10 }
);
which errors due to incompatible typing:
Error: foo:number not assignable to foo:string
Error: number not assignable to string[] (return type)
caveat: you may need to polyfill Object.assign if targeting older browsers.
TypeScript is designed to handle this case through declaration merging:
you may also be familiar with JavaScript practice of creating a function and then extending the function further by adding properties onto the function. TypeScript uses declaration merging to build up definitions like this in a type-safe way.
Declaration merging lets us say that something is both a function and a namespace (internal module):
function f() { }
namespace f {
export var someValue = 3;
}
This preserves typing and lets us write both f() and f.someValue. When writing a .d.ts file for existing JavaScript code, use declare:
declare function f(): void;
declare namespace f {
export var someValue: number;
}
Adding properties to functions is often a confusing or unexpected pattern in TypeScript, so try to avoid it, but it can be necessary when using or converting older JS code. This is one of the only times it would be appropriate to mix internal modules (namespaces) with external.
So if the requirement is to simply build and assign that function to "f" without a cast, here is a possible solution:
var f: { (): any; someValue: number; };
f = (() => {
var _f : any = function () { };
_f.someValue = 3;
return _f;
})();
Essentially, it uses a self executing function literal to "construct" an object that will match that signature before the assignment is done. The only weirdness is that the inner declaration of the function needs to be of type 'any', otherwise the compiler cries that you're assigning to a property which does not exist on the object yet.
EDIT: Simplified the code a bit.
Old question, but for versions of TypeScript starting with 3.1, you can simply do the property assignment as you would in plain JS, as long as you use a function declaration or the const keyword for your variable:
function f () {}
f.someValue = 3; // fine
const g = function () {};
g.someValue = 3; // also fine
var h = function () {};
h.someValue = 3; // Error: "Property 'someValue' does not exist on type '() => void'"
Reference and online example.
As a shortcut, you can dynamically assign the object value using the ['property'] accessor:
var f = function() { }
f['someValue'] = 3;
This bypasses the type checking. However, it is pretty safe because you have to intentionally access the property the same way:
var val = f.someValue; // This won't work
var val = f['someValue']; // Yeah, I meant to do that
However, if you really want the type checking for the property value, this won't work.
I can't say that it's very straightforward but it's definitely possible:
interface Optional {
<T>(value?: T): OptionalMonad<T>;
empty(): OptionalMonad<any>;
}
const Optional = (<T>(value?: T) => OptionalCreator(value)) as Optional;
Optional.empty = () => OptionalCreator();
if you got curious this is from a gist of mine with the TypeScript/JavaScript version of Optional
An updated answer: since the addition of intersection types via &, it is possible to "merge" two inferred types on the fly.
Here's a general helper that reads the properties of some object from and copies them over an object onto. It returns the same object onto but with a new type that includes both sets of properties, so correctly describing the runtime behaviour:
function merge<T1, T2>(onto: T1, from: T2): T1 & T2 {
Object.keys(from).forEach(key => onto[key] = from[key]);
return onto as T1 & T2;
}
This low-level helper does still perform a type-assertion, but it is type-safe by design. With this helper in place, we have an operator that we can use to solve the OP's problem with full type safety:
interface Foo {
(message: string): void;
bar(count: number): void;
}
const foo: Foo = merge(
(message: string) => console.log(`message is ${message}`), {
bar(count: number) {
console.log(`bar was passed ${count}`)
}
}
);
Click here to try it out in the TypeScript Playground. Note that we have constrained foo to be of type Foo, so the result of merge has to be a complete Foo. So if you rename bar to bad then you get a type error.
NB There is still one type hole here, however. TypeScript doesn't provide a way to constrain a type parameter to be "not a function". So you could get confused and pass your function as the second argument to merge, and that wouldn't work. So until this can be declared, we have to catch it at runtime:
function merge<T1, T2>(onto: T1, from: T2): T1 & T2 {
if (typeof from !== "object" || from instanceof Array) {
throw new Error("merge: 'from' must be an ordinary object");
}
Object.keys(from).forEach(key => onto[key] = from[key]);
return onto as T1 & T2;
}
This departs from strong typing, but you can do
var f: any = function() { }
f.someValue = 3;
if you are trying to get around oppressive strong typing like I was when I found this question. Sadly this is a case TypeScript fails on perfectly valid JavaScript so you have to you tell TypeScript to back off.
"You JavaScript is perfectly valid TypeScript" evaluates to false. (Note: using 0.95)
Say I'm defining a simple 2D point class in Scala, and I want to be able to construct it with various types:
class Point(x:Float, y:Float) {
this(x:Double, y:Double) = this(x.toFloat, y.toFloat)
this(x:Int, y:Int) = this(x.toFloat, y.toFloat)
// etc...
}
I want to boil this down using a template, such as:
class Point(x:Float, y:Float) {
this[T](x:T, y:T) = this(x.toFloat, y.toFloat)
}
I know this won't work anyway, since T could be a type for which toFloat isn't defined, but the compiler error I get is:
no type parameters allowed here
Is this just unsupported in Scala? If so, why, and is there any simple way to get around this?
Scala's class constructors (unlike Java's) can't take type parameters, only the class itself can. As to why Scala made this design choice, I assume the main reason is simplicity.
If you want a secondary "builder" method that is generic, the natural thing to do is define it on the companion object. For example,
object Point {
def build[T : Numeric](x: T, y: T) = {
val n = implicitly[Numeric[T]]
new Point(n.toFloat(x), n.toFloat(y))
}
}
class Point(val x:Float, val y:Float)
val p = Point.build(1, 2) // Companion object's builder
p.x + p.y
Here I've used the Numeric typeclass to get a generic toFloat method.
I played with this for awhile, getting as "close" as...
class Point(x:Float, y:Float) {
def this[T <: Any { def toFloat: Float }](x:T, y:T) = this(x.toFloat, y.toFloat)
}
...which results in "error: no type parameters allowed here" (just as per the post) and then I realized...
If the initializer could take type parameters it would be ambiguous with the class parameters, if any. Not that this couldn't be worked about in the language specification... but it is a more complex case at the very least. There might also be Java interoperability issues.
Imagine:
class Foo[T](x: T) {
def this[X](z: X) = ...
}
new Foo[Int](42) // T is Int? X is ...? Or ...?
Personally I wish Scala followed an Eiffel-like pattern (only named constructors or "factory methods"), but alas, that would not be Scala.
Happy coding.
I am new to C# / OOP and am working on converting an existing application into .net 4.0 framework.
My code is as follows:
Class abc
private IList<string[]> GetReportBatchList()
{
List<string[]> rowList = new List<string[]>();
SqlParameter[] prm = { new SqlParameter("#rpt_doc_type_id", SqlDbType.Int, 9) };
prm[0].Value = 101;
try
{
.....
.....
.....
}
return rowList;
}
class xyz
using abc;
Private Function GenerateReport()
Try
{
Dim rptBatchList As ??????
rptBatchList = GetReportBatchList()
While rptBatchList.Read()
......
......
......
}
catch
{
......
}
What type should rptBatchList be declared as?
Since the return value of GetReportBatchList() has IList of string as its type, it makes sense that rptBatchList should be the same type.
Your second example is VB, but you say you are using C#, so...
For C# it would be IList<string[]>.
My VB is a little rusty, but I think it would be IList(Of String()).
Hmmm... is this a question about correct return types, or a question about translating C# into VB.Net?
According to the function definition you have, rptBatchList will be of type IList<string[]> - obviously declared in the correct syntax for VB.Net.
Further to that, because it is a list of string arrays, it doesn't have a Read() function, so maybe you were looking for something that derives from DbDataReader instead (like a SqlDataReader)? If you do intend to stick with the current definition then you can use either a foreach or a for loop to iterate over the list elements, or you can use Linq extensions and use something like this:
rptBatchList.ForEach(z => { z.ForEach(x => doSomethingWithThisResultString(x)); } );
although that can get messy fast - you probably want to just stick with a couple of nested foreach loops.