Search Results

Search found 432 results on 18 pages for 'setters'.

Page 9/18 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Should we test all our methods?

  - by Zenzen

  So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

  Read the article

• Service layer coupling

  - by Justin

  I am working on writing a service layer for an order system in php. It's the typical scenario, you have an Order that can have multiple Line Items. So lets say a request is received to store a line item with pictures and comments. I might receive a json request such as { 'type': 'Bike', 'color': 'Red', 'commentIds': [3193,3194] 'attachmentIds': [123,413] } My idea was to have a Service_LineItem_Bike class that knows how to take the json data and store an entity for a bike. My question is, the Service_LineItem class now needs to fetch comments and file attachments, and store the relationships. Service_LineItem seems like it should interact with a Service_Comment and a Service_FileUpload. Should instances of these two other services be instantiated and passed to the Service_LineItem constructor,or set by getters and setters? Dependency injection seems like the right solution, allowing a service access to a 'service fetching helper' seems wrong, and this should stay at the application level. I am using Doctrine 2 as a ORM, and I can technically write a dql query inside Service_LineItem to fetch the comments and file uploads necessary for the association, but this seems like it would have a tighter coupling, rather then leaving this up to the right service object.

  Read the article

• Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

  - by Songo

  Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

  Read the article

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• Recommended design pattern for object with optional and modifiable attributtes? [on hold]

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  Read the article

• Interfaces: profit of using

  - by Zapadlo

  First of all, my ubiquitous language is PHP, and I'm thinking about learning Java. So let me split my question on two closely related parts. Here goes the first part. Say I have a domain-model class. It has some getters, setters, some query methods etc. And one day I want to have a possibility to compare them. So it looks like: class MyEntity extends AbstractEntity { public function getId() { // get id property } public function setId($id) { // set id property } // plenty of other methods that set or retrieve data public function compareTo(MyEntity $anotherEntity) { // some compare logic } } If it would have been Java, I should have implemented a Comparable interface. But why? Polymorphism? Readbility? Or something else? And if it was PHP -- should I create Comparable interface for myself? So here goes the second part. My colleague told me that it is a rule of thumb in Java to create an interface for every behavioral aspect of the class. For example, if I wanted to present this object as a string, I should state this behaviour by something like implements Stringable, where in case of PHP Stringable would look like: interface Stringable { public function __toString(); } Is that really a rule of thumb? What benefits are gained with this approach? And does it worth it in PHP? And in Java?

  Read the article

• WCF DataContract with readonly properties

  - by Asaf R

  Hi, I'm trying to return a complex type from a service method in WCF. I'm using C# and .NET 4. This complex type is meant to be invariant (the same way .net strings are). If I try to define only getters on properties I get a run time error. I guess this is because no setters causes serialization to fail. Still, I think this type should be invariant. Is there a way to make readonly properties on a WCF DataContract? Is, how? If not, what would you suggest for this problem? Thanks, Asaf

  Read the article

• How can I center a Silverlight DataGridTemplateColumn header?

  - by Mike Pateras

  I want to center the header on a Silverlight DataGridTemplateColumn. The following code gets me most of the way there: DataGridTemplateColumn column = new DataGridTemplateColumn(); column.CellTemplate = Resources[templateName] as DataTemplate; column.Header = headerName; column.HeaderStyle = new Style { TargetType = typeof(DataGridColumnHeader) }; column.HeaderStyle.Setters.Add(new Setter(DataGridColumnHeader.HorizontalAlignmentProperty, HorizontalAlignment.Center)); The header is, indeed, centered, but if the column is expanded, the header doesn't stretch. It just remains it's original width, leaving white gaps on either side of it, which looks terrible. What is the proper way to center the column header, such that it still occupies the full width?

  Read the article

• Problem updating BLOB with Hibernate?

  - by JohnSmith

  hi, i am having problem updating a blob with hibernate. (i am using Hiberante 3.3.1-GA) my model have these getters/setters for hibernate, i.e. internally i deal with byte[] so any getter/setter convert the byte[] to blog. I can create an initial object without problem, but if I try to change the content of the blob, the database column is not updated. I do not get any error message, everything looks fine, except that the database is not updated. /** do not use, for hibernate only */ public Blob getLogoBinaryBlob() { if(logoBinary == null){ return null; } return Hibernate.createBlob(logoBinary); } /** do not use, for hibernate only */ public void setLogoBinaryBlob(Blob logoBinaryBlob) { ByteArrayOutputStream baos = new ByteArrayOutputStream(); try { logoBinary = toByteArrayImpl(logoBinaryBlob, baos); } catch (Exception e) { } } my hibernate mapping for the blob looks like <property name="logoBinaryBlob" column="LOGO_BINARY" type="blob" />

  Read the article

• how do you use ${word_selection} in an Eclipse PDT template?

  - by pocketfullofcheese

  I was recently trying to use some code templates with Eclipse PDT 2.1 to speed up some common tasks. We use a lot of getters/setters, so I wrote the following template. function get${word_selection}() { return $$this->getData('${word_selection}'); } function set${word_selection}($$${word_selection}) { $$this->setData('${word_selection}', $$${word_selection}); } I named the template "getset" and the only way I know to use the Code Assist is to type: "getset" then hit my code assist keys (I have it set to Esc, but I think the default was Ctrl+Space). The problem is, this doesn't actually let me select a word to be used by the ${word_selection}. My question is: how do I type in my template name, hit the key combo, and have a word selected all at the same time?

  Read the article

• Best approach for authorisation rules

  - by Maciej

  I'm wonder about best approach of implementation auth. rules in Client-Server app using Business Objects. I've noticed common tactic is: - on DB side: implement one role for application, used for all app's users - definition users right and roles and assign users to proper group - Client side: add to Business Object's getters/setters rights checker allowing write / display data for particular user My concern is if this is really good approach from security perspective. It looks DB sends all information to Client, and then client's logic decide what to display or not. So, potentially advanced user can make query from their box and see/change anything. Isn't it?

  Read the article

• Collection.contains(Enum.Value) in HQL?

  - by Seth

  I'm a little confused about how to do something in HQL. So let's say I have a class Foo that I'm persisting in hibernate. It contains a set of enum values, like so: public class Foo { @CollectionOfElements private Set<Bar> barSet = new HashSet<Bar>(); //getters and setters here ... } and public enum Bar { A, B } Is there an HQL statement I can use to fetch only Foo instances who'se barSet containst Bar.B? List foos = session.createQuery("from Foo as foo " + "where foo.barSet.contains.Bar.B").list(); Or am I stuck fetching all Foo instances and filtering them out at the DAO level? List foos = session.createQuery("from Foo as foo").list(); List results = new ArrayList(); for(Foo f : foos) { if(f.barSet.contains(Bar.B)) results.add(f); } Thanks!

  Read the article

• Bean is not instantiating while using hibernate interceptor

  - by amit sharma

  I am using hibernate interceptor with spring framework,but when i pass a bean reference of DAO class its not instantiating the bean. My interceptor class has: private IMyService myService; // and getters and setters while application-context.xml having entries: <bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.LocalSessionFactoryBean"> <property name="entityInterceptor" ref="logInterceptor"></property> </bean> <bean name="logInterceptor" class="com.amit.project.Utility.TableLogInterceptor" > <property name="myService" ref="myService"/> </bean> <bean name="myService" class="com.amit.project.service.impl.MyService"> But my bean is not instantiating in class, showing null. entityInterceptor is not allowing to do that or anything else? plz suggest a way if anybody knows.

  Read the article

• JAX-RS JSON java.util.Date Unmarshall

  - by user229498

  Hi, I'm using Jersey (jax-rs), to build a REST rich application. Everything is great, but I really don't understand how to set in JSON Marshalling and Unmarshalling converting option for dates and numbers. I have a User class: @XmlRootElement public class User { private String username; private String password; private java.util.Date createdOn; // ... getters and setters } When createdOn property is serialized, a string like this: '2010-05-12T00:00:00+02:00', but I need to choose date Pattern both, to marshall and unmarshall. Someone knows hot to do that? Thank's a lot, Davide.

  Read the article

• Why are getters prefixed with the word "get"?

  - by Joey

  Generally speaking, creating a fluid API is something that makes all programmers happy; Both for the creators who write the interface, and the consumers who program against it. Looking beyond conventions, why is it that we prefix all our getters with the word "get". Omitting it usually results in a more fluid, easy to read set of instructions, which ultimately leads to happiness (however small or passive). Consider this very simple example. (pseudo code) Conventional: person = new Person("Joey") person.getName().toLower().print() Alternative: person = new Person("Joey") person.name().toLower().print() Of course this only applies to languages where getters/setters are the norm, but is not directed at any specific language. Were these conventions developed around technical limitations (disambiguation), or simply through the pursuit of a more explicit, intentional feeling type of interface, or perhaps this is just a case of trickle a down norm. What are your thoughts? And how would simple changes to these conventions impact your happiness / daily attitudes towards your craft (however minimal). Thanks.

  Read the article

• http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/org/w3c/dom/Document.html#getDoctype()

  - by Tom Brito

  The Document class have a getDoctype method but doesn't have a setDoctype. The documentation says: The DOM Level 2 does not support editing the Document Type Declaration. docType cannot be altered in any way, including through the use of methods inherited from the Node interface, such as insertNode or removeNode. and in my project I need to generate xml files with my specified doctypes. I've tryied to create my own DefaultNode, but it throws "DOMException: Method not supported" for the setters. Any idea?

  Read the article

• How to user Hibernate @Valid constraint with Spring 3.x?

  - by Burak Dede

  I am working on simple form to validate fields like this one. public class Contact { @NotNull @Max(64) @Size(max=64) private String name; @NotNull @Email @Size(min=4) private String mail; @NotNull @Size(max=300) private String text; } I provide getter and setters hibernate dependencies on my classpath also.But i still do not get the how to validate simple form there is actually not so much documentation for spring hibernate combination. @RequestMapping(value = "/contact", method = RequestMethod.POST) public String add(@Valid Contact contact, BindingResult result) { .... } Could you explain it or give some tutorial , except original spring 3.x documentation

  Read the article

• Overloading properties in C#

  - by end-user

  Ok, I know that property overloading is not supported in C# - most of the references explain it by citing the single-method-different-returntype problem. However, what about setters? I'd like to directly assign a value as either a string or object, but only return as a string. Like this: public string FieldIdList { get { return fieldIdList.ToString(); } set { fieldIdList = new FieldIdList(value); } } public FieldIdList FieldIdList { set { fieldIdList = value; } } private FieldIdList fieldIdList; Why wouldn't this be allowed? I've also seen that "properties" simply create getter/setter functions on compile. Would it be possible to create my own? Something like: public void set_FieldIdList(FieldIdList value) { fieldIdList = value; } That would do the same thing. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• MVVM - RaisePropertyChanged turning code into a mess

  - by vidalsasoon

  New to MVVM so please excuse my ignorance. I THINK i'm using it right but I find my ViewModel has too many of these: RaisePropertyChanged("SomeProperty") Every time I set a property I have to raise that damned property changed. I miss the days where I could just go: public int SomeInteger { get; private set;} These days I have to stick the "RaisePropertyChanged" in everywhere or my UI does not reflect the changes :( Am I doing it wrong or are other people getting annoyed with the excessive number of magic strings and old school property setters? Should I be using dependency properties instead? (I doubt that would help the code bloat anyway) Despite these problems I still think MVVM is the way to go so I guess that's something.

  Read the article

• !(ReferenceEquals()) vs != in Entity Framework 4

  - by Eric J.

  Unless a class specifically overrides the behavior defined for Object, ReferenceEquals and == do the same thing... compare references. In property setters, I have commonly used the pattern private MyType myProperty; public MyType MyProperty { set { if (myProperty != value) { myProperty = value; // Do stuff like NotifyPropertyChanged } } } However, in code generated by Entity Framework, the if statement is replaced by if (!ReferenceEquals(myProperty, value)) Using ReferenceEquals is more explicit (as I guess not all C# programmers know that == does the same thing if not overridden). Is there any difference that's escaping me between the two if-variants? Are they perhaps accounting for the possibility that POCO designers may have overridden ==? In short, if I have not overridden ==, am I save using != instead of ReferencEquals()?

  Read the article

• Proper reconstitution of Aggregate objects in the Repository?

  - by Jebb

  Assuming that no ORM (e.g. Doctrine) is used inside the Repository, my question is what is the proper way of instantiating the Aggregate objects? Is it instantiating the child objects directly inside the Repository and just assign it to the Aggregate Root through its setters or the Aggregate Root is responsible of constructing its child entities/objects? Example 1: class UserRepository { // Create user domain entity. $user = new User(); $user->setName('Juan'); // Create child object orders entity. $orders = new Orders($orders); $user->setOrders($orders); } Example 2: class UserRepository { // Create user domain entity. $user = new User(); $user->setName('Juan'); // Get orders. $orders = $ordersDao->findByUser(1); $user->setOrders($orders); } whereas in example 2, instantiation of orders are taken care inside the user entity.

  Read the article

• jaxb XmlAccessType: PROPERTY example

  - by Bjorn J

  I'm trying to use jaxb and want to use the 'XmlAccessType.PROPERTY' to let jaxb use getters/setters rather than variable directly, but get different errors depending on what I try, or the variable isn't set at all like I want. Any good link or pointer to a simple example? For example, the below makes the groupDefintion not to be set when parsing the xml document: @XmlAccessorType(javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlAccessType.PROPERTY) public class E { private EGroup groupDefinition; public EGroup getGroupDefinition () { return groupDefinition; } @XmlAttribute public void setGroupDefinition (EGroup g) { groupDefinition = g; } }

  Read the article

• Can Hibernate automatically uppercase a column on read/insert via configuration?

  - by T Reddy

  We have some columns with data that must always be in uppercase to ensure uniqueness. I was wondering if hibernate can force all such columns to uppercase via some configuration file change? We actually use a custom UserType for encrypting/decrypting column data for some other table, but I figured that would be overkill just to uppercase everything... Alternatively, I was thinking about modifying the models such that all getters/setters will uppercase any string coming and going. The worst(?) case scenario is to modify the Oracle column constraint to ignore case while checking uniqueness. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• how to better use of eclipse code templates (PHP)?

  - by pocketfullofcheese

  One particular problem I was having was using ${word_selection} in an Eclipse PDT template. I was recently trying to use some code templates with Eclipse PDT 2.1 to speed up some common tasks. We use a lot of getters/setters, so I wrote the following template. function get${word_selection}() { return $$this->getData('${word_selection}'); } function set${word_selection}($$${word_selection}) { $$this->setData('${word_selection}', $$${word_selection}); } I named the template "getset" and the only way I know to use the Code Assist is to type: "getset" then hit my code assist keys (I have it set to Esc, but I think the default was Ctrl+Space). The problem is, this doesn't actually let me select a word to be used by the ${word_selection}. how do I type in my template name, hit the key combo, and have a word selected all at the same time? I also want to know what kinds of templates people have set up and any other tips for using templates to speed of programming.

  Read the article

• How to make a Django model fields calculated at runtime?

  - by Anatoly Rr

  I have a model: class Person (models.Model): name = models.CharField () birthday = models.DateField () age = models.IntegerField () I want to make age field to behave like a property: def get_age (self): return (datetime.datetime.now() - self.birthday).days // 365 age = property (get_age) but at the same time I need age to be a true field, so I can find it in Person._meta.fields, and assign attributes to it: age.help_text = "Age of the person", etc. Obviously I cannot just override Person.save() method to calculate and store age in the database, because it inevitably will become wrong later (in fact, it shouldn't be stored in the database at all). Actually, I don't need to have setters now, but a nice solution must have setting feature. Is it possible in Django, or probably there is a more pythonic and djangoic approach to my problem?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >