I need to get the OCL model of conditions contained in UML edges from an ACCELEO script navigating the main UML model. To this end I have defined the following Java class:
public class GetOCLModel {
public Constraint getOCLModel(Classifier context, String expression){
OCL<Package, Classifier, Operation, Property, EnumerationLiteral, Parameter,
State, CallOperationAction, SendSignalAction, Constraint, Class, EObject> ocl;
//CL.newInstance(EcoreEnvironmentFactory.INSTANCE);
UMLEnvironmentFactory uef = new UMLEnvironmentFactory();
ocl = OCL.newInstance(uef.createEnvironment());
OCLHelper<Classifier, Operation, Property, Constraint> helper = ocl.createOCLHelper();
helper.setContext(context);
Constraint expr= null;
try {
expr= (Constraint) helper.createInvariant(expression);
System.out.println("Hunky Dory!");
} catch (ParserException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return expr;
}
}
This is the ACCELEO Module wrapping it:
[module generateOclModel('http://www.eclipse.org/ocl/1.1.0/UML','http://www.eclipse.org/uml2/2.1.0/UML')/]
[query public getOclModel(cl:Classifier, str:String): Constraint = invoke('sfg.baleno.src.services.GetOCLModel',
'getOCLModel(org.eclipse.uml2.uml.Classifier, java.lang.String)',Sequence{cl,str}) /]
And here is how I am trying to invoke it from the main ACCELEO module:
[c.getOclModel('self.name=\'Testclass\'')._context.name/]
It does not work and I cant' see why, any idea?
UPDATE
I realized the helper was actually outputting this exception
org.eclipse.ocl.SemanticException: Unrecognized variable: (name)
what am I doing wrong?
Related
Lets say I have table defined as:
CREATE TABLE ITEMS(
ID BIGINT PRIMARY KEY,
NAME VARCHAR2,
CONSTRAINT NAME_IS_UNIQUE UNIQUE (NAME)
);
Important part is NAME_IS_UNIQUE constraint.
With corresponding POJO Item as:
class Item{
private Long id;
private String name;
/** getters and setters */
}
And SQL-Object interface with methods defined as:
#SqlUpdate("insert into items(id, name) values(:id, :name)")
int insert(#BindBean Item itemToInsert);
If I'll try to insert into ITEMS with already existing NAME then I will get DB vendor specific SQLException about constraint NAME_IS_UNIQUE violation.
Is there a way to provide mapping between SQLException and application specific Exception (for example ItemNameUniqueConstraintException) so insert method essentially changed it signature to something like the one below?
#SqlUpdate("insert into items(id, name) values(:id, :name)")
int insert(#BindBean Item itemToInsert) throws ItemNameUniqueConstraintException;
Question is not about specific UNIQUE constraint, but more about general case, where SQLException can be about anything: Like referential integrity violation or check constraint violation, etc.
At this moment there is no supported way to handle SQLException -> ApplicationException mapping, you can read discussions and reasoning in the issue.
But you can use workaround with default methods and handle exception manually, e.g.:
class ItemNameUniqueConstraintException extends Exception {
public ItemNameUniqueConstraintException(String message, Throwable cause) {
super(message, cause);
}
}
interface Repository {
default void insert(String name) throws ItemNameUniqueConstraintException {
try {
_insert(name);
} catch (JdbiException e) {
if (e.getCause() instanceof SQLException) {
var cause = (SQLException) e.getCause();
if (cause.getSQLState().equals("11111")) {
throw new ItemNameUniqueConstraintException("Name not unique.", cause);
}
}
// ...
}
}
#SqlUpdate("INSERT INTO test (name) VALUES (:name)")
void _insert(#Bind("name") String name);
}
It is not very pretty, but can be made a little better with separate interfaces for contract of repository and JDBI implementation, which can allow not to expose _insert and similar methods to the caller.
I want to create an instance of class A which inherits class StatelessService in my unit test. But I can't. I've tried everything: mocking dependencies, implementing my own contexts and etc.
When I try to create an instance, StatelessService throws NullReferenceException somewhere inside.
Can it be done at all?
class A : StatelessService
{
public A(StatelessServiceContext context) : base(context /* Here will be thrown NullReferenceException */)
{
// It will never even get there.
}
}
class UnitTest
{
public void TestMethod()
{
var activationContext = MOCK<ICodePackageActivationContext>();
var context = new StatelessServiceContext(..., activationContext, ...);
var a = new A(context); // Here will be thrown an exception.
}
}
It can be done. But instead of re inventing the wheel, have a look at service fabric mocks https://github.com/loekd/ServiceFabric.Mocks
It contains useful helpers for exactly your type of scenario.
I am trying to embed collection of Tag forms to Service form, according to this tutorial. Tag and Service entities have many-to-many relationship.
Form is rendering correctly. But when I submit form, I get
Could not determine access type for property "tagList"
error. I don't understand why new Tag object is not added to the Service class by calling the addTag() method.
ServiceType
public function buildForm(FormBuilderInterface $builder, array $options)
{
$builder
->add('title', TextType::class, array(
'label' => 'Title'
))
;
$builder->add('tagList', CollectionType::class, array(
'entry_type' => TagType::class,
'allow_add' => true,
'allow_delete' => true,
'by_reference' => false
)));
}
Service class
{
....
/**
* #ORM\ManyToMany(targetEntity="Tag", mappedBy="serviceList",cascade={"persist"})
*/
private $tagList;
/**
* #return ArrayCollection
*/
public function getTagList()
{
return $this->tagList;
}
/**
* #param Tag $tag
* #return Service
*/
public function addTag(Tag $tag)
{
if ($this->tagList->contains($tag) == false) {
$this->tagList->add($tag);
$tag->addService($this);
}
}
/**
* #param Tag $tag
* #return Service
*/
public function removeTag(Tag $tag)
{
if ($this->tagList->contains($tag)) {
$this->tagList->removeElement($tag);
$tag->removeService($this);
}
return $this;
}
}
Tag class
{
/**
* #ORM\ManyToMany(targetEntity="Service", inversedBy="tagList")
* #ORM\JoinTable(name="tags_services")
*/
private $serviceList;
/**
* #param Service $service
* #return Tag
*/
public function addService(Service $service)
{
if ($this->serviceList->contains($service) == false) {
$this->serviceList->add($service);
$service->addTag($this);
}
return $this;
}
/**
* #param Service $service
* #return Tag
*/
public function removeService(Service $service)
{
if ($this->serviceList->contains($service)) {
$this->serviceList->removeElement($service);
$service->removeTag($this);
}
return $this;
}
}
ServiceController
public function newAction(Request $request)
{
$service = new Service();
$form = $this->createForm('AppBundle\Form\ServiceType', $service);
$form->handleRequest($request);
if ($form->isSubmitted() && $form->isValid()) {
$em = $this->getDoctrine()->getManager();
$em->persist($service);
$em->flush();
return $this->redirectToRoute('service_show', array('id' => $service->getId()));
}
return $this->render('AppBundle:Service:new.html.twig', array(
'service' => $service,
'form' => $form->createView(),
));
}
Could you please try to implement code from this URL?
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/association-mapping.html#owning-and-inverse-side-on-a-manytomany-association
First, please try to change mapped/inverse sides, and remove $service->addTag($this); from Tag::addService method.
Short version:
I just ran into this problem and solved it by adding a setter for the affected property:
Could not determine access type for property "tagList"
public function setTagList(Array $tagList)
{
$this->tagList = $tagList;
}
Long version:
The error message is signaling that Symfony is trying to modify the object's state, but cannot figure out how to actually make the change due to the way its class is set up.
Taking a look at Symfony's internals, we can see that Symfony gives you 5 chances to give it access and picks the best one in this order from top to bottom:
A setter method named setProperty() with one argument:
This is the first thing Symfony checks for and is the most explicit way to achieve this. As far as I'm aware this is the best practice:
class Entity {
protected $tagList;
//...
public function getTagList()
{
return $this->tagList;
}
//...
}
A combined getter and setter in one method with one argument:
It's important to realize that this method will also be accessed by Symfony in order to get the object's state. Since those method calls don't include an argument, the argument in this method must be optional.
class Entity {
protected $tagList;
//...
public function tagList($tags = null)
{
if($reps){
$this->tagList = $tags;
} else {
return $this->tagList;
}
}
//...
}
The affected property being declared as public:
class Entity {
public $tagList;
//... other properties here
}
A __set magic method:
This will affect all properties rather than just the one you intended.
class Entity {
public $tagList;
//...
public function __set($name, $value){
$this->$name = $value;
}
//...
}
A __call magic method (in some cases):
I wasn't able to confirm this, but the internal code suggests this is possible when magic is enabled on PropertyAccessor's construction.
Only using one of the above strategies is required.
Maybe the problem is that Symfony can't access that property?
If you look at where that exception is thrown (writeProperty method in the PropertyAccessor class) it says it can be thrown:
If the property does not exist or is not public.
In the tutorial you mentioned it has property $tags, and method addTag. I'm just guessing here, but maybe there's a convention where it tries to call a method names add($singularForm) and this is failing for you because the property is tagList and the method is addTag.
I'm not 100% sure, but you could try debugging by setting a stop point in that Symfony method to see why it's being thrown.
Maybe you forgot in the __construct() of Service class and Tag class to initialize $tagList and $serviceList like this ?
$this->tagList = new ArrayCollection();
$this->serviceList = new ArrayCollection();
This seems like an error with your constructor. Try this :
public function __construct()
{
$this-> tagList = new \Doctrine\Common\Collections\ArrayCollection();
}
It's a long shot, but looking at your annotations I think the problem might be related to your manyToMany relationship. Try to change the owning side and inverse side (Swap the relationship) unless you specifically need to update from both ends (In that case I think the only solution is to add the objects manually or use oneToMany relationships).
Changes made only to the inverse side of an association are ignored.
Make sure to update both sides of a bidirectional association (or at
least the owning side, from Doctrine’s point of view)
This is a problem related to Doctrine I have suffered before, see:
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/unitofwork-associations.html
Based on Symfony 3.3.10
I actually faced this problem many and many times, finally once i discovered where this problem was coming from, depending on the name you give to your entity property it can happen that the adder and the remover for your collection property aren't exactly what you are expecting.
Example: Your entity properity name is "foo" and you would expect the adder to be called "addFoo" and remover "removeFoo", but then all of a sudden the "Could not determine access type for property" appear.
So you start going into fear searching for w/e problems in your code, instead you just have to look this file inside Symfony core files:
vendor/symfony/symfony/src/Symfony/Component/PropertyAccess/PropertyAccessor.php
Inside this file there's a method called findAdderAndRemover.
Go there with your debugger and you will eventually find out that symfony searches for weird name for your adder/remover, they may actually end with "um" or "on" or "us" depending on the language (human language) you used to name them. Since i'm Italian this happen quite often.
Watch out for that, since the fix may be as simple as changing the name used for your add/remove method inside your entity to make them match with what Symfony core is looking for.
This happens to me when i use bin/console doctrine:generate:entities to create the methods automatically for me
If you are using symfony, and use EntityRepository instead of CollectionType, make sure you use the 'multiple' => true, on your form build, otherwise the input will be for one entity and not for many, therefore it will call the setTagList instead of using the methods addTagList and removeTagList.
I do have a simple class like this:
package com.example.howtomocktest
import groovy.util.logging.Slf4j
import java.nio.channels.NotYetBoundException
#Slf4j
class ErrorLogger {
static void handleExceptions(Closure closure) {
try {
closure()
}catch (UnsupportedOperationException|NotYetBoundException ex) {
log.error ex.message
} catch (Exception ex) {
log.error 'Processing exception {}', ex
}
}
}
And I would like to write a test for it, here is a skeleton:
package com.example.howtomocktest
import org.slf4j.Logger
import spock.lang.Specification
import java.nio.channels.NotYetBoundException
import static com.example.howtomocktest.ErrorLogger.handleExceptions
class ErrorLoggerSpec extends Specification {
private static final UNSUPPORTED_EXCEPTION = { throw UnsupportedOperationException }
private static final NOT_YET_BOUND = { throw NotYetBoundException }
private static final STANDARD_EXCEPTION = { throw Exception }
private Logger logger = Mock(Logger.class)
def setup() {
}
def "Message logged when UnsupportedOperationException is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions {UNSUPPORTED_EXCEPTION}
then:
notThrown(UnsupportedOperationException)
1 * logger.error(_ as String) // doesn't work
}
def "Message logged when NotYetBoundException is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions {NOT_YET_BOUND}
then:
notThrown(NotYetBoundException)
1 * logger.error(_ as String) // doesn't work
}
def "Message about processing exception is logged when standard Exception is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions {STANDARD_EXCEPTION}
then:
notThrown(STANDARD_EXCEPTION)
1 * logger.error(_ as String) // doesn't work
}
}
The logger in ErrorLogger class is provided by StaticLoggerBinder, so my question is - how do I make it work so that those checks "1 * logger.error(_ as String)" would work? I can't find a proper way of mocking that logger inside of ErrorLogger class. I have thought about reflection and somehow accessing it, furthermore there was an idea with mockito injection (but how to do that if reference to an object is not even present in that class because of that Slf4j annotation!) Thanks in advance for all your feedback and advices.
EDIT: Here is an output of a test, even 1*logger.error(_) doesn't work.
Too few invocations for:
1*logger.error() (0 invocations)
Unmatched invocations (ordered by similarity):
What you would need to do is to replace the log field generated by the #Slf4j AST transformation with your mock.
However, this is not so easy to achieve, since the generated code is not really test-friendly.
A quick look at the generated code reveals that it corresponds to something like this:
class ErrorLogger {
private final static transient org.slf4j.Logger log =
org.slf4j.LoggerFactory.getLogger(ErrorLogger)
}
Since the log field is declared as private final it is not so easy to replace the value with your mock. It actually boils down to the exact same problem as described here. In addition, usages of this field is wrapped in isEnabled() methods, so for instance every time you invoke log.error(msg) it is replaced with:
if (log.isErrorEnabled()) {
log.error(msg)
}
So, how to solve this? I would suggest that you register an issue at the groovy issue tracker, where you ask for a more test-friendly implementation of the AST transformation. However, this won't help you much right now.
There are a couple of work-around solutions to this that you might consider.
Set the new field value in your test using the "awful hack" described in the stack overflow question mentioned above. I.e. make the field accessible using reflection and set the value. Remember to reset the value to the original during cleanup.
Add a getLog() method to your ErrorLogger class and use that method for access instead of direct field access. Then you may manipulate the metaClass to override the getLog() implementation. The problem with this approach is that you would have to modify the production code and add a getter, which kind of defies the purpose of using #Slf4j in the first place.
I'd also like to point out that there are several problems with your ErrorLoggerSpec class. These are hidden by the problems you've already encountered, so you would probably figure these out by yourself when they manifested themselves.
Even though it is a hack, I'll only provide code example for the first suggestion, since the second suggestion modifies the production code.
To isolate the hack, enable simple reuse and avoid forgetting to reset the value, I wrote it up as a JUnit rule (which can also be used in Spock).
import org.junit.rules.ExternalResource
import org.slf4j.Logger
import java.lang.reflect.Field
import java.lang.reflect.Modifier
public class ReplaceSlf4jLogger extends ExternalResource {
Field logField
Logger logger
Logger originalLogger
ReplaceSlf4jLogger(Class logClass, Logger logger) {
logField = logClass.getDeclaredField("log");
this.logger = logger
}
#Override
protected void before() throws Throwable {
logField.accessible = true
Field modifiersField = Field.getDeclaredField("modifiers")
modifiersField.accessible = true
modifiersField.setInt(logField, logField.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL)
originalLogger = (Logger) logField.get(null)
logField.set(null, logger)
}
#Override
protected void after() {
logField.set(null, originalLogger)
}
}
And here is the spec, after fixing all the small bugs and adding this rule. Changes are commented in the code:
import org.junit.Rule
import org.slf4j.Logger
import spock.lang.Specification
import java.nio.channels.NotYetBoundException
import static ErrorLogger.handleExceptions
class ErrorLoggerSpec extends Specification {
// NOTE: These three closures are changed to actually throw new instances of the exceptions
private static final UNSUPPORTED_EXCEPTION = { throw new UnsupportedOperationException() }
private static final NOT_YET_BOUND = { throw new NotYetBoundException() }
private static final STANDARD_EXCEPTION = { throw new Exception() }
private Logger logger = Mock(Logger.class)
#Rule ReplaceSlf4jLogger replaceSlf4jLogger = new ReplaceSlf4jLogger(ErrorLogger, logger)
def "Message logged when UnsupportedOperationException is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions UNSUPPORTED_EXCEPTION // Changed: used to be a closure within a closure!
then:
notThrown(UnsupportedOperationException)
1 * logger.isErrorEnabled() >> true // this call is added by the AST transformation
1 * logger.error(null) // no message is specified, results in a null message: _ as String does not match null
}
def "Message logged when NotYetBoundException is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions NOT_YET_BOUND // Changed: used to be a closure within a closure!
then:
notThrown(NotYetBoundException)
1 * logger.isErrorEnabled() >> true // this call is added by the AST transformation
1 * logger.error(null) // no message is specified, results in a null message: _ as String does not match null
}
def "Message about processing exception is logged when standard Exception is thrown"() {
when:
handleExceptions STANDARD_EXCEPTION // Changed: used to be a closure within a closure!
then:
notThrown(Exception) // Changed: you added the closure field instead of the class here
//1 * logger.isErrorEnabled() >> true // this call is NOT added by the AST transformation -- perhaps a bug?
1 * logger.error(_ as String, _ as Exception) // in this case, both a message and the exception is specified
}
}
If you are using Spring, you have acces to OutputCaptureRule
#Rule
OutputCaptureRule outputCaptureRule = new OutputCaptureRule()
def test(){
outputCaptureRule.getAll().contains("<your test output>")
}
According to the documentation, you should be able to pass a javabean to a FreeMarker template, and it will be able to access the getters of the bean. I've been trying to do this, but have not had any luck. Here's my code where I pass the bean to the template.
public class Hello extends HttpServlet {
public static final Logger LOGGER = Logger.getLogger(Hello.class.getName());
#Override
protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp) throws ServletException, IOException {
try {
Configuration cfg = new Configuration();
cfg.setDirectoryForTemplateLoading(new File(this.getServletContext().getRealPath("/templates")));
cfg.setObjectWrapper(new DefaultObjectWrapper());
cfg.setDefaultEncoding("UTF-8");
cfg.setTemplateExceptionHandler(TemplateExceptionHandler.HTML_DEBUG_HANDLER);
cfg.setIncompatibleImprovements(new Version(2, 3, 20)); // FreeMarker 2.3.20
final String name = req.getParameter("name");
// This works when model is a Map, but not when it is a bean
Model model = new Model();
model.setUsername(name);
Template template = cfg.getTemplate("hello.ftl");
template.process(model, resp.getWriter());
} catch (TemplateException ex) {
LOGGER.log(Level.SEVERE, "Unexpected template exception", ex);
resp.sendError(500);
}
}
private static class Model {
private String username;
public void setUsername(String username) {
this.username = username;
}
public String getUsername() {
return username;
}
}
}
When I try to access ${username} in a template, I get the following error.
The following has evaluated to null or missing:
==> username [in template "hello.ftl" at line 8, column 10]
Tip: If the failing expression is known to be legally null/missing... (snip)
The failing instruction (FTL stack trace):
----------
==> ${username} [in template "hello.ftl" at line 8, column 8]
----------
I can get the template to work correctly when I use a Map. I've tried explicitly wrapping the Model object with various TemplateModel wrappers, but nothing I try seems to work.
Any hints?
Model must be a public class for this to work.
Some other notes unrelated to the question: Use setServletContextForTemplateLoading instead setDirectoryForTemplateLoading, or else your app won't work if it's run from an unpacked .war. Also, of course you must not re-create the Configuration for each request, but I assume that's like that only for the sake of this example.