I usually program in VB.NET, but am trying to use C#.
In VB.NET, if form1 has a toolStripButton1 and in UserControl I usually write like this:
Dim first As New form1
first.toolStripButton1.enable = False
But in C#, I try:
private void MyNameMethod() {
Form1 first = new Form1();
first. ???????
but it doesn't work. How do I translate the above VB.NET code? I can not select toolStripButton1.
Make sure toolStripButton1 is actually on Form1 and set to public.
first.toolStripButton1.enable = false;
The instance is first, form1 is the name of the class.
Open Form1.Designer.cs [it is default class, may find easily from solution window, under Form1]
At the end of Form1.Designer.cs Controls are listed (as private Controls), change your control to public which you want to access.
Than on your UserControl's cs file add this codes:
private Form1 myForm;
public void AssignForm(Form1 _myForm)
{
myForm = _myForm
}
private void AccessControl()
{
myForm.myButton.Enable = ! myForm.myButton.Enable;
}
Open your Form1.cs file and you AssignForm function so that your UserControl may access your main Form. Put this code in your Form1-Constructor:
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
myUserControl1.AssignForm(this);
}
This is one of the ways to access to Form1 controls in an easy way.
Related
In SDN+OGM I used the following method to extend the base repository with additional functionality, specifically I want a way to find or create entities of different types (labels):
#NoRepositoryBean
public class MyBaseRepository<T> extends SimpleNeo4jRepository<T, String> {
private final Class<T> domainClass;
private final Session session;
public SpacBaseRepository(Class<T> domainClass, Session session) {
super(domainClass, session);
this.domainClass = domainClass;
this.session = session;
}
#Transactional
public T findOrCreateByName(String name) {
HashMap<String, String> params = new HashMap<>();
params.put("name", name);
params.put("uuid", UUID.randomUUID().toString());
// we do not use queryForObject in case of broken data with non-unique names
return this.session.query(
domainClass,
String.format("MERGE (x:%s {name:$name}) " +
"ON CREATE SET x.creationDate = timestamp(), x.uuid = $uuid " +
"RETURN x", domainClass.getSimpleName()),
params
).iterator().next();
}
}
This makes it so that I can simply add findOrCreateByName to any of my repository interfaces without the need to duplicate a query annotation.
I know that SDN 6 supports the automatic creation of a UUID very nicely through #GeneratedValue(UUIDStringGenerator.class) but I also want to add the creation date in a generic way. The method above allows to do that in OGM but in SDN the API changed and I am a bit lost.
Well, sometimes it helps to write down things. I figured out that the API did not change that much. Basically the Session is replaced with Neo4jOperations and the Class is replaced with Neo4jEntityInformation.
But even more important is that SDN 6 has #CreatedDate which makes my entire custom code redundant.
We manage several ASP.NET MVC client web sites, which all use a data annotation like the following to validate customer email addresses (I haven't included the regex here, for readability):
[Required(ErrorMessage="Email is required")]
[RegularExpression(#"MYREGEX", ErrorMessage = "Email address is not valid")]
public string Email { get; set; }
What I would like to do is to centralise this regular expression, so that if we make a change to it, all of the sites immediately pick it up and we don't have to manually change it in each one.
The problem is that the regex argument of the data annotation must be a constant, so I cannot assign a value I've retrieved from a config file or database at runtime (which was my first thought).
Can anyone help me with a clever solution to this—or failing that, an alternative approach which will work to achieve the same goal? Or does this just require us to write a specialist custom validation attribute which will accept non-constant values?
The easiest way is to write a custom ValidationAttribute that inherits from RegularExpressionAttribute, so something like:
public class EmailAttribute : RegularExpressionAttribute
{
public EmailAttribute()
: base(GetRegex())
{ }
private static string GetRegex()
{
// TODO: Go off and get your RegEx here
return #"^[\w-]+(\.[\w-]+)*#([a-z0-9-]+(\.[a-z0-9-]+)*?\.[a-z]{2,6}|(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3})(:\d{4})?$";
}
}
That way, you still maintain use of the built in Regex validation but you can customise it. You'd just simply use it like:
[Email(ErrorMessage = "Please use a valid email address")]
Lastly, to get to client side validation to work, you would simply add the following in your Application_Start method within Global.asax, to tell MVC to use the normal regular expression validation for this validator:
DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider.RegisterAdapter(typeof(EmailAttribute), typeof(RegularExpressionAttributeAdapter));
Checkout ScotGu's [Email] attribute (Step 4: Creating a Custom [Email] Validation Attribute).
Do you really want to put the regex in database/config file, or do you just want to centralise them? If you just want to put the regex together, you can just define and use constants like
public class ValidationRegularExpressions {
public const string Regex1 = "...";
public const string Regex2 = "...";
}
Maybe you want to manage the regexes in external files, you can write a MSBuild task to do the replacement when you build for production.
If you REALLY want to change the validation regex at runtime, define your own ValidationAttribute, like
[RegexByKey("MyKey", ErrorMessage = "Email address is not valid")]
public string Email { get; set; }
It's just a piece of code to write:
public class RegexByKeyAttribute : ValidationAttribute {
public RegexByKey(string key) {
...
}
// override some methods
public override bool IsValid(object value) {
...
}
}
Or even just:
public class RegexByKeyAttribute : RegularExpressionAttribute {
public RegexByKey(string key) : base(LoadRegex(key)) { }
// Be careful to cache the regex is this operation is expensive.
private static string LoadRegex(string key) { ... }
}
Hope it's helpful: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc668224.aspx
Why not just write you own ValidationAttribute?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.dataannotations.validationattribute.aspx
Then you can configure that thing to pull the regex from a registry setting... config file... database... etc... etc..
How to: Customize Data Field Validation in the Data Model Using Custom
I'm trying to write some tests for an MVC application we're developing. We have a BaseController class that contains the following:
public class BaseController : Controller
{
protected string UserRole { get; private set; }
We then have a controller that inherits from the BaseController:
public class CustomFieldController : BaseController
I've generated private accessors for both classes (just regenerated them a few minutes ago). In one of my unit tests for CustomFieldController I want to set the UserRole, so I've got the following code:
CustomFieldController controller = new CustomFieldController();
CustomFieldController_Accessor accessor = new CustomFieldController_Accessor(
new PrivateObject( controller, new PrivateType( typeof( BaseController ) ) ) );
accessor.UserRole = "OTHER";
Every time I try to run this test it throws an exception on the last line stating:
The member specified (CustomFieldEdit) could not be found. You might need to regenerate your private accessor, or the member may be private and defined on a base class. If the latter is true, you need to pass the type that defines the member into PrivateObject's constructor.
As far as I can tell, I've done what it says. Not only have I recently regenerated the private accessor, but I am passing the type that defines the member into PrivateObject's constructor.
Any thoughts as to what I'm missing here? I know I can make it work by taking the "private" off the property setter, but I'd rather not do that if I can avoid it (don't want subclass implementers thinking they can inject a value into that property).
CustomFieldController controller = new CustomFieldController();
var po = new PrivateObject( controller, new PrivateType( typeof( BaseController ) ) );
CustomFieldController_Accessor accessor = new CustomFieldController_Accessor( po );
po.SetFieldOrProperty("UserRole","OTHER");
I'm currently working on a multi-tenant application that employs Shared DB/Shared Schema approach. IOW, we enforce tenant data segregation by defining a TenantID column on all tables. By convention, all SQL reads/writes must include a Where TenantID = '?' clause. Not an ideal solution, but hindsight is 20/20.
Anyway, since virtually every page/workflow in our app must display tenant specific data, I made the (poor) decision at the project's outset to employ a Singleton to encapsulate the current user credentials (i.e. TenantID and UserID). My thinking at the time was that I didn't want to add a TenantID parameter to each and every method signature in my Data layer.
Here's what the basic pseudo-code looks like:
public class UserIdentity
{
public UserIdentity(int tenantID, int userID)
{
TenantID = tenantID;
UserID = userID;
}
public int TenantID { get; private set; }
public int UserID { get; private set; }
}
public class AuthenticationModule : IHttpModule
{
public void Init(HttpApplication context)
{
context.AuthenticateRequest +=
new EventHandler(context_AuthenticateRequest);
}
private void context_AuthenticateRequest(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var userIdentity = _authenticationService.AuthenticateUser(sender);
if (userIdentity == null)
{
//authentication failed, so redirect to login page, etc
}
else
{
//put the userIdentity into the HttpContext object so that
//its only valid for the lifetime of a single request
HttpContext.Current.Items["UserIdentity"] = userIdentity;
}
}
}
public static class CurrentUser
{
public static UserIdentity Instance
{
get { return HttpContext.Current.Items["UserIdentity"]; }
}
}
public class WidgetRepository: IWidgetRepository{
public IEnumerable<Widget> ListWidgets(){
var tenantId = CurrentUser.Instance.TenantID;
//call sproc with tenantId parameter
}
}
As you can see, there are several code smells here. This is a singleton, so it's already not unit test friendly. On top of that you have a very tight-coupling between CurrentUser and the HttpContext object. By extension, this also means that I have a reference to System.Web in my Data layer (shudder).
I want to pay down some technical debt this sprint by getting rid of this singleton for the reasons mentioned above. I have a few thoughts on what a better implementation might be, but if anyone has any guidance or lessons learned they could share, I would be much obliged.
CurrentUser isn't quite a singleton. I'm not exactly sure what you'd call it. (A singleton by definition can only exist one at a time, and any number of UserIdentity instances can be created at will by outside code and coexist without any issues.)
Personally, i'd take CurrentUser.Instance and either move it to UserIdentity.CurrentUser, or put it together with whatever similar "get the global instance" methods and properties you have. Gets rid of the CurrentUser class, at least. While you're at it, make the property settable at the same place -- it's already settable, just in an way that (1) would look like magic if the two classes weren't shown right next to each other, and (2) makes changing how the current user identity is set later harder.
Doesn't get rid of the global, but you're not really gonna get around that without passing the UserIdentity to every function that needs it.
I'm starting to learn how to use PHPUnit to test the website I'm working on. The problem I'm running into is that I have five different user types defined and I need to be able to test every class with the different types. I currently have a user class and I would like to pass this to each function but I can't figure out how to pass this or test the different errors that could come back as being correct or not.
Edit: I should have said. I have a user class and I want to pass a different instance of this class to each unit test.
If your various user classes inherit from a parent user class, then I recommend you use the same inheritance structure for your test case classes.
Consider the following sample classes:
class User
{
public function commonFunctionality()
{
return 'Something';
}
public function modifiedFunctionality()
{
return 'One Thing';
}
}
class SpecialUser extends User
{
public function specialFunctionality()
{
return 'Nothing';
}
public function modifiedFunctionality()
{
return 'Another Thing';
}
}
You could do the following with your test case classes:
class Test_User extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
public function create()
{
return new User();
}
public function testCommonFunctionality()
{
$user = $this->create();
$this->assertEquals('Something', $user->commonFunctionality);
}
public function testModifiedFunctionality()
{
$user = $this->create();
$this->assertEquals('One Thing', $user->commonFunctionality);
}
}
class Test_SpecialUser extends Test_User
{
public function create() {
return new SpecialUser();
}
public function testSpecialFunctionality()
{
$user = $this->create();
$this->assertEquals('Nothing', $user->commonFunctionality);
}
public function testModifiedFunctionality()
{
$user = $this->create();
$this->assertEquals('Another Thing', $user->commonFunctionality);
}
}
Because each test depends on a create method which you can override, and because the test methods are inherited from the parent test class, all tests for the parent class will be run against the child class, unless you override them to change the expected behavior.
This has worked great in my limited experience.
If you're looking to test the actual UI, you could try using something like Selenium (www.openqa.org). It lets you write the code in PHP (which I'm assuming would work with phpUnit) to drive the browser..
Another approach would be to have a common method that could be called by each test for your different user type. ie, something like 'ValidatePage', which you could then call from TestAdminUser or TestRegularUser and have the method simply perform the same basic validation of what you're expecting..
Just make sure you're not running into an anti-pattern here. Maybe you do too much work in the constructor? Or maybe these should be in fact different classes? Tests often give you clues about design of code. Listen to them.