Let me elaborate on the title:
I want to implement a system that would allow me to enable/disable/modify the general behavior of my program. Here are some examples:
I could switch off and on logging
I could change if my graphing program should use floating or pixel coordinates
I could change if my calculations should be based upon some method or some other method
I could enable/disable certain aspects like maybe a extension api
I could enable/disable some basic integrated profiler (if I had one)
These are some made-up examples.
Now I want to know what the most common solution for this sort of thing is.
I could imagine this working with some sort of singelton class that gets instanced globally or in some other globally available object. Another thing that would be possible would be just constexpr or other variables floating around in a namespace, again globally.
However doing something like that, globally, feels like bad practise.
second part of the question
This might sound like I cant decide what I want, but I want a way to modify all these switches/flags or whatever they are actually called in a single location, without tying any of my classes to it. I don't know if this is possible however.
Why don't I want to do that? Well I like to make my classes somewhat reusable and I don't like tying classes together, unless its required by the DRY principle and or inheritance. I basically couldn't get rid of the flags without modifying the possible hundreds of classes that used them.
What I have tried in the past
Having it all as compiler defines. This worked reasonably well, however I didnt like that I couldnt make it so if the flag file was gone there were some sort of default settings that would make the classes themselves still operational and changeable (through these default values)
Having it as a class and instancing it globally (system class). Worked ok, however I didnt like instancing anything globally. Also same problem as above
Instancing the system class locally and passing it to the classes on construction. This was kinda cool, since I could make multiple instruction sets. However at the same time that kinda ruined the point since it would lead to things that needed to have one flag set the same to have them set differently and therefore failing to properly work together. Also passing it on every construction was a pain.
A static class. This one worked ok for the longest time, however there is still the problem when there are missing dependencies.
Summary
Basically I am looking for a way to have a single "place" where I can mess with some values (bools, floats etc.) and that will change the behaviour of all classes using them for whatever, where said values either overwrite default values or get replaced by default values if said "place" isnt defined.
If a Singleton class does not work for you , maybe using a DI container may fit in your third approach? It may help with the construction and make the code more testable.
There are some DI frameworks for c++, like https://github.com/google/fruit/wiki or https://github.com/boost-experimental/di which you can use.
If you decide to use switch/flags, pay attention for "cyclometric complexity".
If you do not change the skeleton of your algorithm but only his behaviour according to the objets in parameter, have a look at "template design pattern". This method allow you to define a generic algorithm and specify particular step for a particular situation.
Here's an approach I found useful; I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but maybe it will give you some ideas.
First, I created a BehaviorFlags.h file that declares the following function:
// Returns true iff the given feature/behavior flag was specified for us to use
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * flagName);
The idea being that any code in any of your classes could call this function to find out if a particular behavior should be enabled or not. For example, you might put this code at the top of your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file:
#include "BehaviorFlags.h"
static const enableExtensionAPI = IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api");
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (enableExtensionsAPI == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
Note that the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() call is only executed once at program startup, for best run-time efficiency; but you also have the option of calling IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() on every call to DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff(), if run-time efficiency is less important that being able to change your program's behavior without having to restart your program.
As far as how the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() function itself is implemented, it looks something like this (simplified version for demonstration purposes):
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * fileName)
{
// Note: a real implementation would find the user's home directory
// using the proper API and not just rely on ~ to expand to the home-dir path
std::string filePath = "~/MyProgram_Settings/";
filePath += fileName;
FILE * fpIn = fopen(filePath.c_str(), "r"); // i.e. does the file exist?
bool ret = (fpIn != NULL);
fclose(fpIn);
return ret;
}
The idea being that if you want to change your program's behavior, you can do so by creating a file (or folder) in the ~/MyProgram_Settings directory with the appropriate name. E.g. if you want to enable your Extensions API, you could just do a
touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_extensions_api
... and then re-start your program, and now IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api") returns true and so your Extensions API is enabled.
The benefits I see of doing it this way (as opposed to parsing a .ini file at startup or something like that) are:
There's no need to modify any "central header file" or "registry file" every time you add a new behavior-flag.
You don't have to put a ParseINIFile() function at the top of main() in order for your flags-functionality to work correctly.
You don't have to use a text editor or memorize a .ini syntax to change the program's behavior
In a pinch (e.g. no shell access) you can create/remove settings simply using the "New Folder" and "Delete" functionality of the desktop's window manager.
The settings are persistent across runs of the program (i.e. no need to specify the same command line arguments every time)
The settings are persistent across reboots of the computer
The flags can be easily modified by a script (via e.g. touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah or rm -f ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah) -- much easier than getting a shell script to correctly modify a .ini file
If you have code in multiple different .cpp files that needs to be controlled by the same flag-file, you can just call IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("that_file") from each of them; no need to have every call site refer to the same global boolean variable if you don't want them to.
Extra credit: If you're using a bug-tracker and therefore have bug/feature ticket numbers assigned to various issues, you can creep the elegance a little bit further by also adding a class like this one:
/** This class encapsulates a feature that can be selectively disabled/enabled by putting an
* "enable_behavior_xxxx" or "disable_behavior_xxxx" file into the ~/MyProgram_Settings folder.
*/
class ConditionalBehavior
{
public:
/** Constructor.
* #param bugNumber Bug-Tracker ID number associated with this bug/feature.
* #param defaultState If true, this beheavior will be enabled by default (i.e. if no corresponding
* file exists in ~/MyProgram_Settings). If false, it will be disabled by default.
* #param switchAtVersion If specified, this feature's default-enabled state will be inverted if
* GetMyProgramVersion() returns any version number greater than this.
*/
ConditionalBehavior(int bugNumber, bool defaultState, int switchAtVersion = -1)
{
if ((switchAtVersion >= 0)&&(GetMyProgramVersion() >= switchAtVersion)) _enabled = !_enabled;
std::string fn = defaultState ? "disable" : "enable";
fn += "_behavior_";
fn += to_string(bugNumber);
if ((IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(fn))
||(IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_everything")))
{
_enabled = !_enabled;
printf("Note: %s Behavior #%i\n", _enabled?"Enabling":"Disabling", bugNumber);
}
}
/** Returns true iff this feature should be enabled. */
bool IsEnabled() const {return _enabled;}
private:
bool _enabled;
};
Then, in your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file, you might have something like this:
// Extensions API feature is tracker #4321; disabled by default for now
// but you can try it out via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_feature_4321"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false);
// Also tracker #4222 is now enabled-by-default, but you can disable
// it manually via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/disable_feature_4222"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4222(4222, true);
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (_feature4321.IsEnabled() == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
... or if you know that you are planning to make your Extensions API enabled-by-default starting with version 4500 of your program, you can set it so that Extensions API will be enabled-by-default only if GetMyProgramVersion() returns 4500 or greater:
static ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false, 4500);
[...]
... also, if you wanted to get more elaborate, the API could be extended so that IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() can optionally return a string to the caller containing the contents of the file it found (if any), so that you could do shell commands like:
echo "opengl" > ~/MyProgram_Settings/graphics_renderer
... to tell your program to use OpenGL for its 3D graphics, or etc:
// In Renderer.cpp
std::string rendererType;
if (IsDebugFlagEnabled("graphics_renderer", &rendererType))
{
printf("The user wants me to use [%s] for rendering 3D graphics!\n", rendererType.c_str());
}
else printf("The user didn't specify what renderer to use.\n");
Related
I'm trying to create simple game in C++. At one point I want to have some setting, save and load from config file.
The config file should be read from the beginning, and should be accessible anywhere it needed.
So far I only see Singleton pattern as a solution.
Another way is to create an object an pass it down, but it can mess
up the current code.
I've also search and found something called Dependency Injection.
Is dependency injection useful in C++
Which design patterns can be applied to the configuration settings problem?
But I don't quite understand it, you still have to create an object in main and pass it down, right?
Singleton is quite simple, but some consider it antipattern, while pass it down the tree can mess up my current code. Is there any other Patterns?
P/S: I'm also curious how games load their setting.
I would suggest something simple as the following example, which circumvents any singleton-related or initialization order issue:
struct global_state
{
config _config;
};
struct game_state
{
global_state& _global_state;
};
int main()
{
global_state globals{load_config_from_file()};
game_state game{globals};
game.run();
}
Since _global_state is a member of game_state, it can be used in member functions without the need of explicitly passing it as a parameter:
void game_state::update_ui()
{
const float text_size = _global_state._config.get_float("text_size");
_some_text.set_size(text_size);
}
I'm using the program Maya to make a rather large project in python. I have numerous options that will be determined by a GUI and input by the user.
One example of an option is what dimensions to render at. However I did not make a GUI yet and am still in the testing faze.
What I ultimately want is a way to have variables be able to be looked up and used by various classes/methods within multiple modules. And also that there be a way that I can test all the code without having an actual GUI.
Should I directly pass all data to each method? My issue with this is if method foo relies on variable A, but method bar needs to call foo, it could get real annoying passing these variables to Foo from everywhere its called.
Another way I saw was passing all variables through to each class instance itself and using instance variables to access. But what if an option changes, then i'd have to put reload imports every time it runs.
For testing what I use now is a module that gets variables from a config file with the variables, and i import that module and use the instance variables throughout the script.
def __init__(self):
# Get and assign all instance variables.
options = config_section_map('Attrs', '%s\\ui_options.ini' %(data_path))
for k, v in options.items():
if v.lower() == 'none':
options[k] = None
self.check_all = int(options['check_all'])
self.control_group = options['control_group']
Does anyone have advice or can point me in the right direction dealing with getting/using ui variables?
If the options list is not overly long and won't change, you can simply set member variables in the class initializer, which makes the initialization easy for readers to understand:
class OptionData(object):
def __init___(self):
#set the options on startup
self.initial_path = "//network"
self.initial_name = "filename"
self.use_hdr = True
# ... etc
If you expect the initializations to change often you can split out the initial values into the constructor for the class:
class OptionData(object):
def __init___(self, path = "//network", name = "filename", hdr=True)
self.initial_path = path
self.initial_name = name
self.use_hdr = hdr
If you need to persist the data, you can fill out the class reading the cfg file as you're doing, or store it in some other way. Persisting makes things harder because you can't guarantee that the user won't open two Maya's at the same time, potentially changing the saved data in unpredictable ways. You can store per-file copies of the data using Maya's fileInfo.
In both of these cases I'd make the actual GUI take the data object (the OptionData or whatever you call yours) as an initializer. That way you can read and write the data from the GUI. Then have the actual functional code read the OptionData:
def perform_render(optiondata):
#.... etc
That way you can run a batch process without the gui at all and the functional code will be none the wiser. The GUI's only job is to be a custom editor for the data object and then to pass it on to the final function in a valid state.
This questions is addressed to developers using C++ and the NDK of Nuke.
Context: Assume a custom Op which implements the interfaces of DD::Image::NoIop and
DD::Image::Executable. The node iterates of a range of frames extracting information at
each frame, which is stored in a custom data structure. An custom knob, which is a member
variable of the above Op (but invisible in the UI), handles the loading and saving
(serialization) of the data structure.
Now I want to exchange that data structure between Ops.
So far I have come up with the following ideas:
Expression linking
Knobs can share information (matrices, etc.) using expression linking.
Can this feature be exploited for custom data as well?
Serialization to image data
The custom data would be serialized and written into a (new) channel. A
node further down the processing tree could grab that and de-serialize
again. Of course, the channel must not be altered between serialization
and de-serialization or else ... this is a hack, I know, but, hey, any port
in a storm!
GeoOp + renderer
In cases where the custom data is purely point-based (which, unfortunately,
it isn't in my case), I could turn the above node into a 3D node and pass
point data to other 3D nodes. At some point a render node would be required
to come back to 2D.
I am going into the correct direction with this? If not, what is a sensible
approach to make this data structure available to other nodes, which rely on the
information contained in it?
This question has been answered on the Nuke-dev mailing list:
If you know the actual class of your Op's input, it's possible to cast the
input to that class type and access it directly. A simple example could be
this snippet below:
//! #file DownstreamOp.cpp
#include "UpstreamOp.h" // The Op that contains your custom data.
// ...
UpstreamOp * upstreamOp = dynamic_cast< UpstreamOp * >( input( 0 ) );
if ( upstreamOp )
{
YourCustomData * data = yourOp->getData();
// ...
}
// ...
UPDATE
Update with reference to a question that I received via email:
I am trying to do this exact same thing, pass custom data from one Iop
plugin to another.
But these two plugins are defined in different dso/dll files.
How did you get this to work ?
Short answer:
Compile your Ops into a single shared object.
Long answer:
Say
UpstreamOp.cpp
DownstreamOp.cpp
define the depending Ops.
In a first attempt I compiled the first plugin using only UpstreamOp.cpp,
as usual. For the second plugin I compiled both DownstreamOp.cpp and
UpstreamOp.cpp into that plugin.
Strangely enough that worked (on Linux; didn't test Windows).
However, by overriding
bool Op::test_input( int input, Op * op ) const;
things will break. Creating and saving a Comp using the above plugins still
works. But loading that same Comp again breaks the connection in the node graph
between UpstreamOp and DownstreamOp and it is no longer possible to connect
them again.
My hypothesis is this: since both plugins contain symbols for UpstreamOp it
depends on the load order of the plugins if a node uses instances of UpstreamOp
from the first or from the second plugin. So, if UpstreamOp from the first plugin
is used then any dynamic_cast in Op::test_input() will fail and the two Op cannot
be connected anymore.
It is still surprising that Nuke would even bother to start at all with the above
configuration, since it can be rather picky about symbols from plugins, e.g if they
are missing.
Anyway, to get around this problem I did the following:
compile both Ops into a single shared object, e.g. myplugins.so, and
add TCL script or Python script (init.py/menu.py)which instructs Nuke how to load
the Ops correctly.
An example for a TCL scripts can be found in the dev guide and the instructions
for your menu.py could be something like this
menu = nuke.menu( 'Nodes' ).addMenu( 'my-plugins' )
menu.addCommand('UpstreamOp', lambda: nuke.createNode('UpstreamOp'))
menu.addCommand('DownstreamOp', lambda: nuke.createNode('DownstreamOp'))
nuke.load('myplugins')
So far, this works reliably for us (on Linux & Windows, haven't tested Mac).
I've written my own access layer to a game engine. There is a GameLoop which gets called every frame which lets me process my own code. I'm able to do specific things and to check if these things happened. In a very basic way it could look like this:
void cycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
//read the value
std::string text = Engine::getText();
}
I want to test if my Engine-layer is working by writing automated tests. I have some experience in using the Boost Unittest Framework for simple comparison tests like this.
The problem is, that some things I want the engine to do are just processed after the call to cycle(). So calling Engine::getText() directly after Engine::setText(...) would return an empty string. If I would wait until the next call of cycle() the right value would be returned.
I now am wondering how I should write my tests if it is not possible to process them in the same cycle. Are there any best practices? Is it possible to use the "traditional testing" approach given by Boost Unittest Framework in such an environment? Are there perhaps other frameworks aimed at such a specialised case?
I'm using C++ for everything here, but I could imagine that there are answers unrelated to the programming language.
UPDATE:
It is not possible to access the Engine outside of cycle()
In your example above, std::string text = Engine::getText(); is the code you want to remember from one cycle but execute in the next. You can save it for later execution. For example - using C++11 you could use a lambda to wrap the test into a simple function specified inline.
There are two options with you:
If the library that you have can be used synchronously or using c++11 futures like facility (which can indicate the readyness of the result) then in your test case you can do something as below
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (!Engine::isResultReady());
//read the value
assert(Engine::getText() == "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT");
}
If you dont have the above the best you can do have a timeout (this is not a good option though because you may have spurious failures):
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (Engine::getText() != "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT") {
wait(1 millisec);
if (total_wait_time > 1 sec) // you can put whatever max time
assert(0);
}
}
I need to replace all WinAPI calls of the
CreateFile,
ReadFile,
SetFilePointer,
CloseHandle
with my own implementation (which use low-level file reading via Bluetooth).
The code, where functions will be replaced, is Video File Player and it already works with the regular hdd files.
It is also needed, that Video Player still can play files from HDD, if the file in the VideoPlayer input is a regular hdd file.
What is the best practice for such task?
I suggest that you follow these steps:
Write a set of wrapper functions, e.g MyCreateFile, MyReadFile, etc, that initially just call the corresponding API and pass the same arguments along, unmodified.
Use your text editor to search for all calls to the original APIs, and replace these with calls to your new wrapper functions.
Test that the application still functions correctly.
Modify the wrapper functions to suit your own purposes.
Note that CreateFile is a macro which expands to either CreateFileW or CreateFileA, depending on whether UNICODE is defined. Consider using LPCTSTR and the TCHAR functions so that your application can be built as either ANSI or Unicode.
Please don't use #define, as suggested in other responses here, as this will just lead to maintenance problems, and as Maximilian correctly points out, it's not a best-practice.
You could just write your new functions in a custom namespace. e.g.
namespace Bluetooth
{
void CreateFile(/*params*/);
void etc...
}
Then in your code, the only thing you would have to change is:
if (::CreateFile(...))
{
}
to
if (Bluetooth::CreateFile(...))
{
}
Easy! :)
If you're trying to intercept calls to these APIs from another application, consider Detours.
If you can edit the code, you should just re-write it to use a custom API that does what you want. Failing that, use Maximilian's technique, but be warned that it is a maintenance horror.
If you cannot edit the code, you can patch the import tables to redirect calls to your own code. A description of this technique can be found in this article - search for the section titled "Spying by altering of the Import Address Table".
This is dangerous, but if you're careful you can make it work. Also check out Microsoft Detours, which does the same sort of thing but doesn't require you to mess around with the actual patching.
If you really want to hijack the API, look at syringe.dll (L-GPL).
I don't think this is best practice but it should work if you put it in an include file that's included everywhere the function you want to change is called:
#define CreateFile MyCreateFile
HRESULT MyCreateFile(whatever the params are);
Implementation of MyCreateFile looks something like this:
#undef CreateFile
HRESULT MyCreateFile(NobodyCanRememberParamListsLikeThat params)
{
if (InputIsNormalFile())
CreateFile(params);
else
// do your thing
}
You basically make every CreateFile call a MyCreateFile call where you can decide if you want need to use your own implementation or the orginal one.
Disclaimer: I think doing this is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I'd rather search and replace all occurences or something.