I have created a custom RecordReader for a mapreduce job
class PatternRecordReader extends RecordReader<LongWritable, Text> {
#Override
public boolean nextKeyValue() {
try {
final String value = someParsingLogic();
final boolean hasValue = value != null;
if (hasValue) {
someLogic();
}else{
// I would like to increment a counter here
// something like context.getCounter(Counters.INVALID_INPUT).increment(1);
}
return hasValue;
}
I would like to increment a counter if no value is returned and be able to set it in the Task context, so that it would be accessible by the job.
Is there anyway to achieve this ?
Related
I created a task list. I want to count the tasks length like this:
ongoing tasks = task list length - isDone tasks
I want to find the isDone tasks count in this case. As to the picture isDone tasks = 2.
These are the classes that I created.
class Task {
final String taskName;
bool isDone;
Task({required this.taskName, this.isDone = false});
void toggleDone() {
isDone = !isDone;
}
}
........
class Taskdata with ChangeNotifier {
final List<Task> _tasks = [];
UnmodifiableListView<Task> get tasks {
return UnmodifiableListView(_tasks);
}
int get tasksCount {
return _tasks.length;
}
}
You can use the where function to filter a list per a certain condition:
int get tasksCount {
List<Task> tasksLeft = _tasks.where((task) => !task.isDone).toList(); //where returns an iterable so we convert it back to a list
return tasksLeft.length;
}
if something goes wrong, you may need to convert List to Iterable
int get doneCount {
Iterable<Task> tasksDone = _tasks
.where((task) => task.isDone)
.toList(); //where returns an iterable so we convert it back to a list
return tasksDone.length;
}
I am trying to use a library for showing Flash Messages https://github.com/elpete/flashmessage But I am having trouble getting it working correctly. The documentation isn't that great and I am new to ColdFusion. I want to have the ability to have persistent error messages across pages. Specifically during checkout so when the user needs to go back or a validation error occurs the message will appear. According to the documentation:
The FlashMessage.cfc needs three parameters to work:
A reference to your flash storage object. This object will need
get(key) and put(key, value) methods. A config object with the
following properties: A unique flashKey name to avoid naming
conflicts. A reference to your containerTemplatePath. This is the view
that surrounds each of the individual messages. It will have
references to a flashMessages array and your messageTemplatePath. A
reference to your messageTemplatePath. This is the view that
represents a single message in FlashMessage. It will have a reference
to a single flash message. The name is chosen by you in your container
template. Create your object with your two parameters and then use it
as normal.
I am getting the error
the function getMessages has an invalid return value , can't cast null value to value of type [array]
I had this script somewhat working at one point but it seems very finicky. I believe it is my implementation of it. I am hoping someone here can help me figure out where I went wrong. Or give me some pointers because I am not sure I am even implementing it correctly.
This is What I have in my testing script:
<cfscript>
alertStorage = createObject("component", 'alert');
config = {
flashKey = "myCustomFlashKey",
containerTemplatePath = "/flashmessage/views/_templates/FlashMessageContainer.cfm",
messageTemplatePath = "/flashmessage/views/_templates/FlashMessage.cfm"
};
flash = new flashmessage.models.FlashMessage(alertStorage, config);
flash.message('blah');
flash.danger('boom');
</cfscript>
And inside of alert.cfc I have:
component {
public any function get(key) {
for(var i = 1; i < ArrayLen(session[key]); i++) {
return session[key][i];
}
}
public any function put(key, value) {
ArrayAppend(session.myCustomFlashKey, value);
return true;
}
public any function exists() {
if(structKeyExists(session,"myCustomFlashKey")) {
return true;
} else {
session.myCustomFlashKey = ArrayNew();
return false;
}
}
}
The Flash Message Component looks like this:
component name="FlashMessage" singleton {
/**
* #flashStorage.inject coldbox:flash
* #config.inject coldbox:setting:flashmessage
*/
public FlashMessage function init(any flashStorage, any config) {
instance.flashKey = arguments.config.flashKey;
singleton.flashStorage = arguments.flashStorage;
instance.containerTemplatePath = arguments.config.containerTemplatePath;
instance.messageTemplatePath = arguments.config.messageTemplatePath;
// Initialize our flash messages to an empty array if it hasn't ever been created
if (! singleton.flashStorage.exists(instance.flashKey)) {
setMessages([]);
}
return this;
}
public void function message(required string text, string type = "default") {
appendMessage({ message: arguments.text, type = arguments.type });
}
public any function onMissingMethod(required string methodName, required struct methodArgs) {
message(methodArgs[1], methodName);
}
public any function render() {
var flashMessages = getMessages();
var flashMessageTemplatePath = instance.messageTemplatePath;
savecontent variable="messagesHTML" {
include "#instance.containerTemplatePath#";
}
setMessages([]);
return messagesHTML;
}
public array function getMessages() {
return singleton.flashStorage.get(instance.flashKey, []);
}
private void function setMessages(required array messages) {
singleton.flashStorage.put(
name = instance.flashKey,
value = arguments.messages
);
}
private void function appendMessage(required struct message) {
var currentMessages = getMessages();
ArrayAppend(currentMessages, arguments.message);
setMessages(currentMessages);
}
}
I have a mocked class with a property that has a get and set. My code under test calls the setter to assign a connection string value. My test code mocks the class that contains the property and I add MustBeCalled when I arrange the mock.
ViewModel Code:
public class ClientViewModel
{
private readonly IMgmtDataProvider dataProvider;
public ClientViewModel(IMgmtDataProvider dataProvider)
{
this.dataProvider = dataProvider;
}
private string clientConnectionString;
public string ClientConnectionString
{
get { return clientConnectionString; }
set
{
clientConnectionString = value;
if (dataProvider != null)
dataProvider.ClientConnectionString = value;
}
}
}
Test Code:
//Arrange
const string connectionString = "THIS IS MY CONNECTIONSTRING";
var mockedDataProvider = Mock.Create<IMgmtDataProvider>();
Mock.Arrange(() => mockedDataProvider.ClientConnectionString).MustBeCalled();
//Act
var testViewModel = new ClientViewModel(mockedDataProvider);
testViewModel.ClientConnectionString = connectionString;
//Assert
var callCount = Mock.GetTimesCalled(() => mockedDataProvider.ClientConnectinString);
Assert.IsTrue(callCount > 0);
my Mock.Arrange(...).MustBeCalled(); appears to be applied to the getter, not the setter. So, when I call Mock.GetTimesCalled(...), it returns 0. I need to apply the MustBeCalled to the setter instead of the getter. I want to assure the dataprovider's connectionstring is getting set when the viewmodel's connection string gets set. How do I tell JustMock to track how many times a mocked setter is called?
Setters are arranged using the Mock.ArrangeSet() method, like so:
Mock.ArrangeSet(() => mockedDataProvider.ClientConnectionString = Arg.AnyString).MustBeCalled();
....
Mock.Assert(mockedDataProvider); // assert all expectations on this mock
You can also use Mock.AssertSet() as an alternative to the ArrangeSet().MustBeCalled() combo.
And finally, there's the Mock.GetTimesSetCalled() method for getting the number of times that a setter was called.
Check out the documentation on property mocking for examples.
I have a label form JavaFx to disply if an operation was succeed or not. This should updated automaticaly when the value changed
public class operation {
private BooleanProperty success = new SimpleBooleanProperty();
public final boolean getSuccess() {
return success.get();
}
public final void setSuccess(boolean value) {
success.set(value);
}
public BooleanProperty successProperty() {
return success;
}
}
there is somewhere this code:
operation.setSuccess(true);
and this:
label1.textProperty().bind(Bindings.format("%s", operation.successProperty() != null || false? "succeed": "not succeed" ));
The Problem successProperty() is not value and if I invoke getValue() it will not updated on UI
Your condition never changes. operation.successProperty() != null just checks whether the reference returned by the method successProperty() is null: it never is.
I think you want
label1.textProperty().bind(Bindings
.when(operation.successProperty())
.then("succeed")
.otherwise("not succeed"));
I'm fairly new to unit testing and we are actually attempting to use it on a project. There is a property like this.
public TimeSpan CountDown
{
get
{
return _countDown;
}
set
{
long fraction = value.Ticks % 10000000;
value -= TimeSpan.FromTicks(fraction);
if(fraction > 5000000)
value += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1);
if(_countDown != value)
{
_countDown = value;
NotifyChanged("CountDown");
}
}
}
My test looks like this.
[TestMethod]
public void CountDownTest_GetSet_PropChangedShouldFire()
{
ManualRafflePresenter target = new ManualRafflePresenter();
bool fired = false;
string name = null;
target.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler((o, a) =>
{
fired = true;
name = a.PropertyName;
});
TimeSpan expected = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 25);
TimeSpan actual;
target.CountDown = expected;
actual = target.CountDown;
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
Assert.IsTrue(fired);
Assert.AreEqual("CountDown", name);
}
The question is how do I test the code in the setter? Do I break it out into a method? If I do it would probably be private since no one else needs to use this. But they say not to test private methods. Do make a class if this is the only case? would two uses of this code make a class worthwhile? What is wrong with this code from a design standpoint. What is correct?
The way you've got is fine (call the setter and then check the get returns the expected value).
Make sure you choose a selection of test values that exercise all the paths in that setter. A single set/get test isn't sufficient coverage.