How replace If-else block condition - if-statement

In my code I have an if-else block condition like this:
public String method (Info info) {
if (info.isSomeBooleanCondition) {
return "someString";
}
else if (info.isSomeOtherCondition) {
return "someOtherString";
}
else if (info.anotherCondition) {
return "anotherStringAgain";
}
else if (lastCondition) {
return "string ...";
}
else return "lastButNotLeastString";
}
Each conditional branch returns a String.
Since if-else statements are difficult to read, test and maintain, how can I replace?
I was thinking to use Chain Of Responsability Pattern, is it right in this case?
Is there any other elegant way that I can do that?

I am left to assume that your code does not exist in the Info class as it is passed in an referenced for all but that last condition. My first instinct would be to make String OtherClass.method(Info) into String Info.method() and have it return the appropriate string.
Next, I would take a look at the conditions. Are they really conditions or can they be mapped to a table. Whenever I see code performing a lookup, such as this, I tend to fall back on attempting to fit into a dictionary or map so I can perform a lookup for the value.
If you are left with conditions that must be checked then I would begin thinking about lambdas, delegates or custom interface. A series of if..then across the same type could easily be represented. Next, you would collect them and execute accordingly. IMO, this would make the if..then bunch much clearer. It is more code by is secondary at this point.
interface IInfoCheck
{
bool TryCheck(Info info, out string);
}
public OtherClass()
{
// Setup checks
CheckerCollection.add(new IInfoCheck{
public String check(out result) {
// check code
}
});
}
public String method(Info info) {
foreach (IInfoCheck ic in CheckerCollection)
{
String result = null;
if (ic.TryCheck(out result))
{
return result;
}
}
}

The problem statement does not fit into an ideal chain of responsibility scenario because it is either/or kind or conditions which look 'chained' but is actually 'not'. Reason - one processes all the chain-links in the chain of responsibility pattern irrespective of what happened in the previous links, i.e. no chain-links are skipped(although you can configure which chain links to process and which not - but still the execution of a chain-link is not dependent on the outcome of a previous chain-link). However, in this if-else-if* scenario - once an if statement condition matches, the further conditions are not evaluated.
I have thought of an alternative design which achieves the above without if-else, but it is lengthier but at the same time more flexible.
Lets say we have a FunctionalInterface IfElseReplacer which takes 'info' as input and gives 'String' output.
public Interface IfElseReplacer(){
public String executeCondition(Info);
}
Then the above conditions can be re-phrased as lambda expressions would look like -
"(Info info) -> info.someCondition ? someString"
"(Info info) -> info.anotherCondition ? someOtherString"
and so on...
Then we need a processConditons method to process these Lambdas- it could be a default method in ifElseReplacer -
default String processConditions(List<IfElseReplacer> ifElseReplacerList, Info info){
String strToReturn="lastButNotLeastString";
for(IfElseReplacer ifElseRep:ifElseReplacerList){
strToReturn=ifElseRep.executeCondition(info);
if(!"lastButNotLeastString".equals(strToReturn)){
break;//if strToReturn's value changes i.e. executeCondition returns a String valueother than "lastButNotLeastString" then exit the for loop
}
return strToReturn;
}
What remains now is to (I am skipping the code for this - please let me know if you need it then will write this also) -
From wherever the if-else conditions need to be checked there -
Create an array of lambda expressions as explained above assigning them to IfElseReplacer interfaces while adding them to a list of type IfElseReplacer.
Pass this list to the default method processConditions() along with an instance of Info.
Default method would return the String value which we would be same as the result of if-else-if* block given in the problem statement.

I'd simply factor out the returns:
return
info.isSomeBooleanCondition ? "someString" :
info.isSomeOtherCondition ? "someOtherString" :
info.anotherCondition ? "anotherStringAgain" :
lastCondition ? "string ..." :
"lastButNotLeastString"
;

From the limited information about the problem, and the code given, it looks like this a case of type-switching. The default solution would be to use a inheritance for that:
class Info {
public abstract String method();
};
class BooleanCondition extends Info {
public String method() {
return "something";
};
class SomeOther extends Info {
public String getString() {
return "somethingElse";
};
Patterns which are interesting in this case are Decorator, Strategy and Template Method. Chain of Responsibility has another focus. Each element in the chain implement logic to process some commands. When chained, an object forwards the command if it cannot process it. This implements a loosly coupled structure to process commands where no central dispatch is needed.
If computing the string on the conditions is an operation, and from the name of the class I am guessing that it is probably an expression tree, you should look at the Visitor pattern.

Related

What's the proper way to have a Task that calls an arbitrary function with a known, specific return type?

I have a value which is expensive to calculate and can be asked for ahead of time--something like a lazily initiated value whose initialization is actually done at the moment of definition, but in a different thread. My immediate thought was to use parallelism.-Task seems purpose-built for this exact use-case. So, let's put it in a class:
class Foo
{
import std.parallelism : Task,task;
static int calculate(int a, int b)
{
return a+b;
}
private Task!(calculate,int,int)* ourTask;
private int _val;
int val()
{
return ourTask.workForce();
}
this(int a, int b)
{
ourTask = task!calculate(a,b);
}
}
That seems all well and good... except when I want the task to be based on a non-static method, in which case I want to make the task a delegate, in which case I start having to do stuff like this:
private typeof(task(&classFunc)) working;
And then, as it turns out, typeof(task(&classFunc)), when it's asked for outside of a function body, is actually Task!(run,ReturnType!classFunc function(Parameters!classFunc))*, which you may notice is not the type actually returned by runtime function calls of that. That would be Task!(run,ReturnType!classFunc delegate(Parameters!classFunc))*, which requires me to cast to typeof(working) when I actually call task(&classFunc). This is all extremely hackish feeling.
This was my attempt at a general template solution:
/**
Provides a transparent wrapper that allows for lazy
setting of variables. When lazySet!!func(args) is called
on the value, the function will be called in a new thread;
as soon as the value's access is attempted, it'll return the
result of the task, blocking if it's not done calculating.
Accessing the value is as simple as using it like the
type it's templated for--see the unit test.
*/
shared struct LazySet(T)
{
/// You can set the value directly, as normal--this throws away the current task.
void opAssign(T n)
{
import core.atomic : atomicStore;
working = false;
atomicStore(_val,n);
}
import std.traits : ReturnType;
/**
Called the same way as std.parallelism.task;
after this is called, the next attempt to access
the value will result in the value being set from
the result of the given function before it's returned.
If the task isn't done, it'll wait on the task to be done
once accessed, using workForce.
*/
void lazySet(alias func,Args...)(Args args)
if(is(ReturnType!func == T))
{
import std.parallelism : task,taskPool;
auto t = task!func(args);
taskPool.put(t);
curTask = (() => t.workForce);
working = true;
}
/// ditto
void lazySet(F,Args...)(F fpOrDelegate, ref Args args)
if(is(ReturnType!F == T))
{
import std.parallelism : task,taskPool;
auto t = task(fpOrDelegate,args);
taskPool.put(t);
curTask = (() => t.workForce);
working = true;
}
private:
T _val;
T delegate() curTask;
bool working = false;
T val()
{
import core.atomic : atomicStore,atomicLoad;
if(working)
{
atomicStore(_val,curTask());
working = false;
}
return atomicLoad(_val);
}
// alias this is inherently public
alias val this;
}
This lets me call lazySet using any function, function pointer or delegate that returns T, and then it'll calculate the value in parallel and return it, fully calculated, next time anything tries to access the underlying value, exactly as I wanted. Unit tests I wrote to describe its functionality pass, etc., it works perfectly.
But one thing's bothering me:
curTask = (() => t.workForce);
Moving the Task around by way of creating a lambda on-the-spot that happens to have the Task in its context still seems like I'm trying to "pull one over" on the language, even if it's less "hackish-feeling" than all the casting from earlier.
Am I missing some obvious language feature that would allow me to do this more "elegantly"?
Templates that take an alias function parameter (such as the Task family) are finicky regarding their actual type, as they can receive any type of function as parameter (including in-place delegates that get inferred themselves). As the actual function that gets called is part of the type itself, you would have to pass it to your custom struct to be able to save the Task directly.
As for the legitimacy of your solution, there is nothing wrong with storing lambdas to interact with complicated (or "hidden") types later.
An alternative is to store a pointer to &t.workForce directly.
Also, in your T val() two threads could enter if(working) at the same time, but I guess due to the atomic store it wouldn't really break anything - anyway, that could be fixed by core.atomic.cas.

Implementation of config file

I am making an application in C++, and it requires a config file that will be read and interpreted on launch. It will contain things such as:
Module1=true
Now, my original plan was to store it all in variables and simply have
If(module1) {
DO_STUFF();
}
However this seems wasteful as it would be checking constantly for a value that would never change. Any ideas?
Optimize the code, only if you find a bottleneck with a profiler. Branch prediction should do its thing here, module1 never changes, so if you call it in a loop, even, there shouldn't be a noticeable performance loss.
If you want to experiment, you can branch once, and make a pointer point to the right function:
using func_ptr = void (*)();
func_ptr p = [](){};
if(module1)
p = DO_STUFF;
while(...)
p();
But this is just something to profile, look at the assembly...
There are also slower, but comfortable ways you could be storing the configuration, e.g. in an array with enumerated indexes, or a map. If I were to get some value in a loop, I'd do:
auto module1 = modules[MODULE1]; // array and enumeration
//auto module1 = modules.at("module1"); // map and string
while(...)
{
if(module1)
DO_STUFF;
...
}
So I'd end up with what you already have.
performance wise a boolean check is no problem, except you start doing it millions or billions of times. Maybe you can start merging code which belongs to module1, but other than that you'd have to check for it like you currently do
This really isn't an issue. If your program requires that Module1 should be true then let it check the value and continue on. It wont affect your performance unless it is being checked too many times.
One thing you could do is make an inline function if it being checked too many times. However, you will have to make sure the function shouldnt be too big otherwise it will be a bigger bottleneck
Sorry guys, didn't spot this when I looked it up:
MDSN
So I check the boolean once on launch and then I don't need to anymore as only the correct functions are launched.
Depending on how your program is set up and how the variables change the behaviour of the code you might be able to use function pointers:
if(Module1 == true)
{
std::function<void(int)> DoStuff = Module1Stuff;
}
And then later:
while(true)
{
DoStuff(ImportantVariable);
}
See http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function for further reference.
Not that I think it'll help all that much but it's an alternative to try out at least.
This can be solved if you know the all use cases of the values you check. For example, if you've read your config file and module1 is true - you do one thing, if it is false - another. Let's start with example:
class ConfigFileWorker {
public:
virtual void run() = 0;
};
class WithModule1Worker {
public:
void run() final override {
// do stuff as if your `Module1` is true
}
};
class WithoutModule1Worker {
public:
void run() final override {
// do stuff as if your `Module1` is false
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<ConfigFileWorker> worker;
const bool Module1 = read_config_file(file, "Module1");
if (Module1) { // you check this only once during launch and just use `worker` all the time after
worker.reset(new WithModule1Worker);
} else {
worker.reset(new WithoutModule1Worker);
}
// here and after just use the pointer with `run()` - then you will not need to check the variable all the time, you'll just perform action.
}
So you have predefined behaviour for 2 cases (true and false) and just create an object of one of them during parsing the config file on launch. This is java-like code, but of course you may use function pointers, std::function and other abstractions instead of a base class, however, base class-option has more flexibility in my opinion.

Google Mock Return a live element using ON_CALL

I read through Google Mock: Return() a list of values and found out how to return a single element from a vector on each EXPECT_CALL, as such I wrote the following code which works:
{
testing::InSequence s1;
for (auto anElem:myVecCollection) {
EXPECT_CALL(myMockInstance, execute())
.WillOnce(testing::Return(anElem));
}
}
so far so good...
Now I read not to use EXPECT_CALL unless you need to. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/googlemock/pRyZwyWmrRE
My use case, myMockInstance is really a stub providing data to the SUT(software under test).
However, a simple EXPECT_CALL to ON_CALL replacement will not work(??), since ON_CALL with WillByDefault only calculates the return type only once(??)
As such I tried setting up an ACTION.
ACTION_P(IncrementAndReturnPointee, p)
{
return (p)++;
}
ON_CALL(myMockInstance, execute())
.WillByDefault(testing::Return
(*(IncrementAndReturnPointee(myVecCollection.cbegin()))));
Clang gives
error: expected expression 'ACTION_P(IncrementAndReturnPointee, p)'
Then I tried setting up a functor and use the Invoke method on it.
struct Funct
{
Funct() : i(0){}
myClass mockFunc(std::vector<myClass> &aVecOfMyclass)
{
return aVecOfMyclass[i++];
}
int i;
};
Funct functor;
ON_CALL(myMockInstance, execute())
.WillByDefault(testing::Return(testing::Invoke(&functor, functor.mockFunc(myVecCollection))));
Clang gives
no matching function for call to 'ImplicitCast_'
: value_(::testing::internal::ImplicitCast_<Result>(value)) {}
Now , I am fairly new to google-mock but have used google-test extensively.
I am a bit lost with the Google-Mock doc. I wanted to know, whether I am on the right path, in terms of what I needed.
If one of you could point to me , which approach is the correct one; or whether I am even close to the right approach, I can take it from there and debug the "close to right approach" further.
Thanks
testing::Return is an action. Your code should look like:
ACTION_P(IncrementAndReturnPointee, p)
{
return *(p++);
}
ON_CALL(myMockInstance, execute())
.WillByDefault(IncrementAndReturnPointee(myVecCollection.cbegin()));
As a side note, it doesn't look like a good idea to use a finite collection myVecCollection. You will probably get a more robust test if you figure out an implementation of the action that creates a new element to return on the fly.

Rapidjson assertions during HasMember

To all those that are familiar with rapidjson i have the following issue:
I have a certain function that accepts as parameter a date and if that date exists in the json file the method does some operations and if not some other operations.
Generally it looks like this: (not actual code more like pseudo)
Function:
void updateData(string date) {
//
//code to turn date from string to const char* (tested)
//
if (v.HasMember(date)) { //v is a value
Value d;
d=v[date];
//
//code that involves getting data from d (d is object) using HasMember
//
} else {
//generic code that has nothing to do with json
}
JSON file:
{
"main": {
"v": {
"2014-10-02" : {
//some fields
},
"2014-10-03" : {
//some fields
}
}
}
}
So the first time that i call updateData for date "2014-10-02" it runs correctly(executes the if part).
The problem is when i call updateData for another date (like "2014-10-03" that is supposed to work well) it always executes the wrong part(else part) and even when i switch back to the first date it still executes the else part. (while popping many assertions (mostly isString())).
So is HasMember really the problem here, in the sense that it is maybe altering the object?
And are there any alternative ways to search for a member, other than that?
Any tip is appreciated...
Its hard to tell without the actual code, but I think problem might be that you are treating "v" as a Value instead of an Object. "v" isn't a value, its the name of the object. So what you have is a nested object. In order to do this I think you would have to used MemberIterators and iterate through the child objects in the v object.
rapidjson has a pretty good example on how to use iterators.
there is also this question here, which has a pretty good answer on how to use nested objects
Retrieving a nested object inside a JSON string using rapidjson

Null checking the null object pattern

The main goal of the Null Object Pattern is to ensure that a usable object is provided to the client. So we want to replace the following code...
void Class::SetPrivateMemberA() {
m_A = GetObject();
}
void Class::UseA() {
if (m_A != null) {
m_A.Method();
} else {
// assert or log the error
}
}
...with this implementation:
void Class::SetPrivateMemberA() {
m_A = GetObject();
}
void Class::UseA() {
m_A.Method();
}
The problem I am thinking of is that GetObject() still returns an object, a NULL Object or otherwise. I like the idea of not checking for null repeatedly and trusting that the object sent back is usable, but why wouldn't I just do that in the first implementation?
Is the advantage of the Null Object pattern just a slight increase in trust to clean up code? With the second implementation, is it not still a good practice to check that it is not null before calling A.Method()?
You're correct that, if you're sure you're never returning nulls, just skip the null check before calling the method in your first implementation. Likewise, if you do need to do something special in the case that UseA() needs to do something differently on a null object, that you need to explicitly check for a null object anyway. However, what null object pattern really helps with is those situations where it doesn't really matter.
Take, for example, most observer patterns. If you implement your observer pattern as a member of your class for which there can only be one observer, and want to announce to the observer that your class did something, it doesn't matter to the class whether the observer is null or not.
This is also illustrated with empty container classes, which are essentially the null object pattern: Instead of returning a null container from a query, you simply return an empty container. For things like iterating through all entries of a container, it often won't matter whether it's empty or not, so getting rid of the need of a null check makes the code more maintainable/more readable. However, if you want to populate a view of your data set, you still need to explicitly show a different "No entries." that checks for an empty container.
Edit for clarity
One problem is only looking at it from the call site. Like most design patterns, this needs to encompass both sides to be fully utilized. Consider:
public PossiblyNull GetSomethingNull()
{
if (someBadSituation())
return null;
else
return SomehowProduceSomething();
}
vs
public PossiblyEmpty GetSomethingEmpty()
{
if (someBadSituation())
return StaticEmptySomething();
else
return ProdueSomethingYay();
}
Now, your call code, instead of looking like
public void DoSomethingWithChild(Foo foo)
{
if (foo != null)
{
PossiblyNull bar = foo.GetSomething();
if (bar != null)
bar.DoSomething();
}
}
it can be
public void DoSomethingWithChild(Foo foo)
{
if (foo != null)
foo.GetSomething().DoSomething();
}
With the second implementation, is it
not still a good practice to check
that it is not null before calling
A.Method()?
No. If you know that m_A is not null, then the check is superfluous; it's an example of paranoid coding. What harm does it do? It complicates your code - unnecessarily; it makes it harder to read, harder to debug.