2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Tests method builder
|
|
|
|
*
|
2013-12-20 01:11:26 -05:00
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2011, 2012, 2013 Mike Gerwitz
|
2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This file is part of ease.js.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* ease.js is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
|
|
|
|
* Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later
|
|
|
|
* version.
|
2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
|
|
|
|
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
|
|
|
|
* more details.
|
2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
|
|
|
|
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @author Mike Gerwitz
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-05 08:52:19 -04:00
|
|
|
var shared = require( __dirname + '/inc-common' );
|
|
|
|
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
require( 'common' ).testCase(
|
2011-08-31 00:24:19 -04:00
|
|
|
{
|
2011-11-03 23:20:45 -04:00
|
|
|
caseSetUp: function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
var _self = this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.testArgs = function( args, name, value, keywords )
|
|
|
|
{
|
2011-11-05 08:52:19 -04:00
|
|
|
shared.testArgs( _self, args, name, value, keywords, function(
|
|
|
|
prev_default, pval_given, pkey_given
|
|
|
|
)
|
2011-11-03 23:20:45 -04:00
|
|
|
{
|
2011-11-05 08:52:19 -04:00
|
|
|
var expected = _self.members[ 'public' ][ name ];
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if ( !expected )
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return prev_default;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
value: {
|
|
|
|
expected: expected,
|
|
|
|
given: pval_given.member,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
keywords: {
|
|
|
|
expected: expected.___$$keywords$$, // XXX
|
|
|
|
given: pkey_given,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
} );
|
2011-11-03 23:20:45 -04:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
setUp: function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:
Class( 'Foo',
{
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._doSomethingWith( bar );
return this;
},
} );
Class( 'FooDecorator',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
},
} );
In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code
return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns. This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._foo.performOperation( bar );
return this;
},
Our boilerplate code then becomes:
var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
return ( ret === this.obj )
? this
: ret;
Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:
Class( 'FooDecorator2',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
} );
`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.
Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
- All arguments are forwarded to the destination
- The return value is forwarded to the caller
- If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
- If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).
N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-02 13:26:47 -04:00
|
|
|
var _self = this;
|
|
|
|
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
// stub factories used for testing
|
|
|
|
var stubFactory = this.require( 'MethodWrapperFactory' )(
|
|
|
|
function( func ) { return func; }
|
|
|
|
);
|
2011-01-21 20:54:55 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:
Class( 'Foo',
{
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._doSomethingWith( bar );
return this;
},
} );
Class( 'FooDecorator',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
},
} );
In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code
return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns. This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._foo.performOperation( bar );
return this;
},
Our boilerplate code then becomes:
var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
return ( ret === this.obj )
? this
: ret;
Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:
Class( 'FooDecorator2',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
} );
`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.
Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
- All arguments are forwarded to the destination
- The return value is forwarded to the caller
- If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
- If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).
N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-02 13:26:47 -04:00
|
|
|
// used for testing proxies explicitly
|
|
|
|
var stubProxyFactory = this.require( 'MethodWrapperFactory' )(
|
|
|
|
function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
_self.proxyFactoryCall = arguments;
|
|
|
|
return _self.proxyReturnValue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.proxyFactoryCall = null;
|
|
|
|
this.proxyReturnValue = function() {};
|
|
|
|
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
this.sut = this.require( 'MemberBuilder' )(
|
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:
Class( 'Foo',
{
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._doSomethingWith( bar );
return this;
},
} );
Class( 'FooDecorator',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
},
} );
In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code
return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns. This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._foo.performOperation( bar );
return this;
},
Our boilerplate code then becomes:
var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
return ( ret === this.obj )
? this
: ret;
Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:
Class( 'FooDecorator2',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
} );
`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.
Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
- All arguments are forwarded to the destination
- The return value is forwarded to the caller
- If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
- If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).
N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-02 13:26:47 -04:00
|
|
|
stubFactory, stubFactory, stubProxyFactory,
|
2011-11-02 19:12:15 -04:00
|
|
|
this.mockValidate = this.getMock( 'MemberBuilderValidator' )
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
);
|
2011-01-21 21:53:31 -05:00
|
|
|
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
this.members = this.sut.initMembers();
|
|
|
|
},
|
2011-11-03 23:20:45 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* The validator can only do its job if we're providing it with the correct
|
|
|
|
* information
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
'Passes proper data to validator when not overriding': function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
var _self = this,
|
|
|
|
called = false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
name = 'foo',
|
|
|
|
value = function() {},
|
|
|
|
keywords = {}
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.mockValidate.validateMethod = function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
called = true;
|
|
|
|
_self.testArgs( arguments, name, value, keywords );
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.sut.buildMethod(
|
|
|
|
this.members, {}, name, value, keywords, function() {}, 1, {}
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.assertEqual( true, called, 'validateMethod() was not called' );
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Passes proper data to validator when overriding': function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
var _self = this,
|
|
|
|
called = false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
name = 'foo',
|
|
|
|
value = function() {},
|
|
|
|
keywords = { 'override': true }
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// since we're overriding
|
|
|
|
( this.members[ 'public' ].foo = function() {} ).___$$keywords$$ =
|
|
|
|
{ 'public': true };
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.mockValidate.validateMethod = function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
called = true;
|
|
|
|
_self.testArgs( arguments, name, value, keywords );
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.sut.buildMethod(
|
|
|
|
this.members, {}, name, value, keywords, function() {}, 1, {}
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.assertEqual( true, called, 'validateMethod() was not called' );
|
|
|
|
},
|
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:
Class( 'Foo',
{
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._doSomethingWith( bar );
return this;
},
} );
Class( 'FooDecorator',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
},
} );
In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code
return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns. This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._foo.performOperation( bar );
return this;
},
Our boilerplate code then becomes:
var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
return ( ret === this.obj )
? this
: ret;
Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:
Class( 'FooDecorator2',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
} );
`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.
Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
- All arguments are forwarded to the destination
- The return value is forwarded to the caller
- If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
- If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).
N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-02 13:26:47 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* The `proxy' keyword should result in a method that proxies to the given
|
|
|
|
* object's method (both identified by name).
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
"Creates proxy when `proxy' keyword is given": function()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
var _self = this,
|
|
|
|
called = false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cid = 1,
|
|
|
|
name = 'foo',
|
|
|
|
value = 'bar',
|
|
|
|
keywords = { 'proxy': true },
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instCallback = function() {}
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// build the proxy
|
|
|
|
this.sut.buildMethod(
|
|
|
|
this.members, {}, name, value, keywords, instCallback, cid, {}
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.assertNotEqual( null, this.proxyFactoryCall,
|
|
|
|
"Proxy factory should be used when `proxy' keyword is provided"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this.assertDeepEqual(
|
2012-05-03 14:13:47 -04:00
|
|
|
[ value, null, cid, instCallback, name, keywords ],
|
Added `proxy' keyword support
The concept of proxy methods will become an important, core concept in ease.js
that will provide strong benefits for creating decorators and proxies, removing
boilerplate code and providing useful metadata to the system. Consider the
following example:
Class( 'Foo',
{
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._doSomethingWith( bar );
return this;
},
} );
Class( 'FooDecorator',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
return this._foo.performOperation( bar );
},
} );
In the above example, `FooDecorator` is a decorator for `Foo`. Assume that the
`getValueOf()` method is undecorated and simply needs to be proxied to its
component --- an instance of `Foo`. (It is not uncommon that a decorator, proxy,
or related class will alter certain functionality while leaving much of it
unchanged.) In order to do so, we can use this generic, boilerplate code
return this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
which would need to be repeated again and again for *each method that needs to
be proxied*. We also have another problem --- `Foo.getValueOf()` returns
*itself*, which `FooDecorator` *also* returns. This breaks encapsulation, so we
instead need to return ourself:
'public performOperation': function( bar )
{
this._foo.performOperation( bar );
return this;
},
Our boilerplate code then becomes:
var ret = this.obj.func.apply( this.obj, arguments );
return ( ret === this.obj )
? this
: ret;
Alternatively, we could use the `proxy' keyword:
Class( 'FooDecorator2',
{
'private _foo': null,
// ...
'public proxy performOperation': '_foo',
} );
`FooDecorator2.getValueOf()` and `FooDecorator.getValueOf()` both perform the
exact same task --- proxy the entire call to another object and return its
result, unless the result is the component, in which case the decorator itself
is returned.
Proxies, as of this commit, accomplish the following:
- All arguments are forwarded to the destination
- The return value is forwarded to the caller
- If the destination returns a reference to itself, it will be replaced with
a reference to the caller's context (`this`).
- If the call is expected to fail, either because the destination is not an
object or because the requested method is not a function, a useful error
will be immediately thrown (rather than the potentially cryptic one that
would otherwise result, requiring analysis of the stack trace).
N.B. As of this commit, static proxies do not yet function properly.
2012-05-02 13:26:47 -04:00
|
|
|
this.proxyFactoryCall,
|
|
|
|
"Proxy factory should be called with proper arguments"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ensure it was properly generated (use a strict check to ensure the
|
|
|
|
// *proper* value is returned)
|
|
|
|
this.assertStrictEqual(
|
|
|
|
this.proxyReturnValue,
|
|
|
|
this.members[ 'public' ][ name ],
|
|
|
|
"Generated proxy method should be properly assigned to members"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
},
|
[#25] Finished refactoring MemberBuilder/MethodTest and removed inc-member_builder-common (no longer needed)
Finally feels like things are starting to come together.
It's rather interesting looking back. Each time I begin writing a piece of
software, I think to myself, "This is the best way to do it." Well, generally.
Perhaps the implementation could have been better, but I may not have had the
time. However, the general concept remains.
Each time I look back months later and find that I disagree with certain
decisions. I find certain implementations to be messy or poorly constructed. Or
perhaps I was just being lazy to begin with. Whatever the case, it is
comforting. It shows that one is continuing to learn and evolve.
Now, in the case of ease.js, we're working with a number of different factors in
regards to my perception of prior code quality. Primarily, I'm looking at a
basic implementation (in this case, I'm referring to test cases) that served as
a foundation that could be later evolved. I didn't have the time to devote to a
stronger solution. However, since the project has evolved so far past my
original expectations, a more sophisticated solution is needed in order to
simplify the overall design. That is what happened here.
Of course, we're also looking at a year's worth of additional, intimate
experience with a language.
Regardless of the reason, I love to see software evolve. Especially my own. It's
as if I'm watching my child grow. From that, I can get a great deal of
satisfaction.
One shouldn't expect perfection. But one should certainly aim for it.
2011-10-26 23:38:43 -04:00
|
|
|
} );
|