refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object by abmusse · Pull Request #139 · IBM/nodejs-itoolkit

abmusse · 2020-03-11T04:06:42Z

Resolves#107

abmusse · 2020-03-12T00:57:51Z

There is an open proposal to add private methods to JS.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-methods

It is currently a stage 3 candidate.

In the future we could use this syntax instead of using __mehtod__ naming used here.

class ClassWithPrivateMethod {
#privateMethod() {
return 'hello world'
}
getPrivateMessage() {
return #privateMethod()
}
}

abmusse · 2020-03-12T05:52:27Z

Need to update unit ProgramCallUnit,js tests with this PR.

- add internal functions to handle ds and data nodes

- addParam now accepts an object as a parameter - DS parameters are now in this format [name, type, value, options]

abmusse · 2020-03-23T03:20:33Z

Functions who use ProgramCall.addParam will need to be updated to pass an object.

This includes methods in the following classes:

iDataQueue
iNetwork
iObj
iProd
iUserSpace
iWork

kadler

I think this is a bit overly complicated. Basically, addData should do something like this:

if type is ds:
create "<ds>" node and set options accordingly
foreach field in ds fields:
xml += addData(field)
append "</ds>"
else:
create "<data>" node and set options accordingly

kadler · 2020-03-24T18:13:19Z

+ ['', '10i0', 0],
+ ['', '10i0', 0],
+ ['', '36h', ''],
+ ['', '10A', ''],
+ ['', '1A', ''],
+ ['', '1A', ''],
+ ['', '10i0', 0],
+ ['', '10i0', 0],


Don't these all need to be objects now?

Just to confirm we are on the same page.
How do we want DS to be defined?
Do we want DS to be an array of objects like shown here?
#107 (comment)
consterrno=[// fields can be defined using objects as well// attributes are set on the object itself, not in a separate object{name: 'bytes_provided',type:'10i0',setlen: 'rec2'},{name: 'bytes_available',type: '10i0'},// The value can be set on the object{name: 'msgid',type: '7a',value: 'XXX0000'},// we can also omit names in object format {type: '1h'},// Data structures can also be nested using object format{name: 'message fields',type='ds',fields=[// You can always mix and match object/array fields['field1','10i0'],{name: 'field2',type:'10i0'}]}];
If that is the case then yes we will need to change these to objects.

yes, all data types should be objects. We can add shortcuts in v1.1 or later.

Sorry, that example was before we talked about the problem for ds options. Thus, ds that need options must be objects, but I suggest we just stop supporting arrays for now as I just mentioned.
So something like this, instead:
consterrno={name: "errno",type: "ds",setlen: "whatever",fields: [ # fieldshere]}

but I suggest we just stop supporting arrays for now as I just mentioned.
Thanks! I agree all data types will just be objects for now. We can add shortcuts and options later.
I will also need to update the iPgm wrapper to create ds types as objects.

#157 will be affected as well.

kadler · 2020-03-24T18:18:39Z

+ const nameNode = parameter.name ? ` name='${parameter.name}'` : '';
+ this.xml += `<parm${nameNode}`;


Please do this like parameter.io and parameter.by are done below.

Thanks will do

kadler · 2020-03-24T18:20:55Z

+ */
+ __addData__(parameter = {}) {
+ // adding a data structure with data nodes
+ if (Array.isArray(parameter.value)) {


Why are we still handling arrays here? Let __addDsNodes__ handle this. Also, I thought we were switching to object-only anyway.

Oh, never mind, I see that we are just checking if it's a ds or not. That should be done by checking parameter.type == 'ds' instead.

Ok will update to check for parameter.type == 'ds'

kadler · 2020-03-24T18:23:25Z

+ * @param {string} value
+ * @param {object} options
+ */
+ __addDataNode__(name, type, value, options) {


I don't see why this function is needed. It should be rolled in to __addData__.

kadler · 2020-03-24T18:23:30Z

+ * @param {array} ds
+ * @param {object} options
+ */
+ __addDsNodes__(ds, options = {}) {


I don't see why this function is needed. It should be rolled in to __addData__.

…bject

kadler · 2020-03-25T15:02:21Z

 const { ProgramCall } = require('../../lib/itoolkit');

+// now in this format
+// [name, type, value, options]


This is outdated with the latest changes

kadler · 2020-03-25T15:03:24Z

 });

- pgm.addParam(outBuf, { io: 'out' });
+ pgm.addParam({ fields: outBuf, io: 'out', type: 'ds' });


I'd prefer the fields go last; seems most sensible to me.

kadler · 2020-03-25T15:05:56Z


- pgm.addParam(params, { name: 'inds', by: 'val', io: 'both' });
+ pgm.addParam({
+ fields: params, type: 'ds', name: 'inds', by: 'val', io: 'both',


Prefer to see attribute order as name, then type, then the rest. fields probably makes most sense to go last

abmusse changed the title ~~refactor: Add functions to handle DS and simple data nodes~~refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an objectMar 11, 2020

abmusse requested a review from kadler March 11, 2020 18:05

abmusse marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2020 18:05

abmusse added 5 commits March 12, 2020 12:22

refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
381bce8
- add internal functions to handle ds and data nodes

refactor: iPgm.addParam to call ProgramCall.addParam with an object
4529380

test: Update ProgramCallUnit with addParam changes
2fa2ed6
- addParam now accepts an object as a parameter - DS parameters are now in this format [name, type, value, options]

fixup! refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
4908bb2

fixup! fixup! refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
955d04e

kadler closed this Mar 12, 2020

kadler reopened this Mar 12, 2020

markirish mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2020
feat: Add DataQueue class #151
Open

fixup! refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
5f929ed

kadler requested changes Mar 18, 2020
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlib/Deprecated.js

abmusse requested a review from kadler March 23, 2020 03:15

kadler requested changes Mar 24, 2020
View reviewed changes

abmusse added 3 commits March 24, 2020 19:28

fixup! refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
d86b478

fixup! refactor: iPgm.addParam to call ProgramCall.addParam with an o…
dee1089
…bject

fixup! test: Update ProgramCallUnit with addParam changes
5d2ee26

abmusse requested a review from kadler March 25, 2020 00:32

kadler reviewed Mar 25, 2020
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlib/ProgramCall.js

kadler reviewed Mar 25, 2020
View reviewed changes

abmusse added 2 commits March 25, 2020 12:51

fixup! fixup! test: Update ProgramCallUnit with addParam changes
03058e2

fixup! refactor: ProgramCall.addParam to accept an object
af333b9

abmusse requested a review from kadler March 25, 2020 18:19

kadler approved these changes Mar 25, 2020
View reviewed changes

kadler merged commit 376cc5a into IBM:masterMar 25, 2020

abmusse mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2020
Update docs to reflect V1 changes #95
Closed

This was referenced Mar 25, 2020
Need to update ProgramCall examples #181
Closed
Need to update Toolkit functions that use ProgramCall.addParam to pass an object #182
Closed
Need to update ProgramCall functional tests to pass an object to addParam #194
Closed

abmusse deleted the refactor-addParam branch May 8, 2020 02:51

		const nameNode = parameter.name ? ` name='${parameter.name}'` : '';
		this.xml += `<parm${nameNode}`;

Uh oh!

Conversation

abmusse commented Mar 11, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

abmusse commented Mar 12, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

abmusse commented Mar 12, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

abmusse commented Mar 23, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kadler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

abmusseMar 24, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

abmusseMar 24, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

abmusse commented Mar 11, 2020•
edited
Loading

abmusse commented Mar 12, 2020•
edited
Loading

abmusse commented Mar 12, 2020•
edited
Loading

abmusse commented Mar 23, 2020•
edited
Loading

abmusseMar 24, 2020•
edited
Loading

abmusseMar 24, 2020•
edited
Loading